Preamble

The House met at Half past Two o'Clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — ROADS

White Lines, London

Mr. William A. Steward: asked the Minister of Transport if he will consider instructing local authorities to paint bold white lines on main roads through London to assist drivers during fog.

The Minister of Transport (Mr. John Maclay): I have carefully considered the suggestion of the hon. Member, but I do not think that the considerable expenditure involved would be justified.

Mr. Steward: Is the Minister aware that, with the removal of the tramway track, traffic congestion in South-East London will be worse, and if he considers that it would be too expensive to provide these white lines, would he at least consider leaving one tramway line on each side of the road as a guide to traffic during fog?

Mr. Maclay: That is an interesting suggestion, but I should have to give it very careful thought.

Vehicle Lighting

Mr. Gerald Nabarro: asked the Minister of Transport whether he will require increased luridity of tail-lamps on passenger and freight road vehicles, also private motor cars, motor-cycles, tricycles and bicycles; and the placing of these tail-lamps a minimum distance above ground level.

Lieut.-Colonel Sir Thomas Moore: On a point of order. Before this Question is answered, could we be told in what dictionary the word "luridity" is to be found, so that we may ascertain what it means?

Mr. Speaker: That is not a point of order.

Mr. Maclay: The law requires that every vehicle on any road during the hours of darkness shall carry one lamp showing to the rear a red light visible from a reasonable distance. A maximum height but not a minimum height is prescribed. I have no power to prescribe the size or standard of brilliance of such lamps and new legislation would be necessary to enable me to do so. I have under consideration the desirability of changes in the law affecting these matters.

Mr. Nabarro: Would my hon. Friend bear in mind, during the course of his deliberations, that an increasing toll of road accidents is being caused by tail


lamps set too low to the ground being covered with mud, with the result that other vehicles crash into them from the rear?

Mr. Maclay: The question of luridity is clearly very important.

Mr. G. P. Stevens: asked the Minister of Transport if he is aware of the dazzle caused at night by motor vehicles of which one headlight cannot be switched off on meeting another vehicle; and if he will introduce legislation to make such an arrangement compulsory.

Mr. Maclay: I am not satisfied that there is any sufficient case for amending existing requirements in regard to headlights. The problem of dazzle has long been studied in this country and elsewhere, but no complete solution has yet been found.

Mr. Stevens: Is it not common experience that where the system involves only the taking out of focus of the two bulbs of the headlamps, a substantial amount of dazzle remains, whereas when the system involves cutting off the offside headlight and dipping the near-side one, dazzle is considerably less? Surely it follows that less dazzle would mean fewer accidents.

Mr. Maclay: My hon. Friend may know that new double-dipping equipment has recently been brought out which some people consider is very effective. The whole problem is very complex and I will certainly continue to study it very carefully.

Mr. Stevens: Will my hon. Friend look on this matter as one of considerable urgency with a view to reducing the number of accidents.

Mr. Maclay: Yes.

Lieut.-Colonel Marcus Lipton: Will the Minister consider, as a temporary measure, asking manufacturers of headlamps to install less powerful headlights on cars, because they are far more powerful than they need be?

Mr. George Porter: asked the Minister of Transport if he will, in the interests of public safety, make it obligatory for public service vehicles to carry headlights.

Mr. Maclay: Public service vehicles do in practice carry headlamps. To make

this compulsory, however, would not meet the real difficulty which is to define precisely how they should be used.

Mr. Porter: While thanking the Minister for all that he intends to do about Questions which have already been answered, may I ask if he will compel the use of up-to-date headlamps on service vehicles, and restrain the use of headlamps on those vehicles which already have them if they are not able to dip them, as they should do by Regulation?

Mr. Maclay: There is a variety of Regulations dealing with this matter, but the point which the hon. Member has raised shows the complexity of the problem. I doubt if I should commit myself to any such proposal as that which he has made without giving it very careful thought.

Mr. Porter: In view of the fact that the Regulation demands that the headlight should have a dipper, is it not an offence for anyone to carry a headlight which cannot do what the Regulation says should be done?

Mr. Maclay: I do not think that that is a question to which I should try to reply at this stage.

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: Will the Minister take note of the supplementary question which I put to him a few minutes ago, and which by some unaccountable oversight he omitted to answer, on the subject of headlights?

Driving Test

Mr. Nabarro: asked the Minister of Transport whether he will require a night driving test to be included in all future driving tests conducted before a driving licence is issued to motor and motor-cycle drivers.

Mr. Maclay: I am afraid that it would be impracticable to require such a test for every applicant for a driving licence.

Mr. Nabarro: Why would it be impracticable? Is it not the fact that many persons are capable of driving in the day-time but, due to peculiarities of eyesight, are not so capable of driving at night, and that this is the cause of a large number of accidents?

Mr. Maclay: One of the reasons why I suggested that it would be impracticable was, as perhaps the hon. Member realises, that in the north of Scotland, for example, there are many months in the year when there would be only half an hour of darkness in which to make such tests.

Brigadier R. Medlicott: asked the Minister of Transport if, in view of the serious number of road accidents, he will now give fresh consideration to the need for imposing a driving test on all road vehicle drivers at intervals of not more than five years.

Mr. Maclay: The suggestion made by my hon. and gallant Friend has been considered from time to time and I have given careful reconsideration to it. I do not think, however, that repeated driving tests would lead to a substantial reduction in the number of accidents.

Brigadier Medlicott: While thanking the Minister for his sympathetic reply, may I ask him whether it is not a fact that a large number of drivers have never had a driving test, and that others, by reason of illness or advancing years, have become less competent? There is also a very strong case for relating the right to drive on the roads to capacity or to proneness to accidents, to which reference has been made.

Mr. Maclay: The practical difficulties are very great. Perhaps my hon. and gallant Friend will remember the very formidable series of replies which he must give when he applies for the renewal of his driving licence.

Stoke-on-Trent

Mr. Ellis Smith: asked the Minister of Transport the number of accidents that have taken place on the main road between Trentham, Stoke-on-Trent and Newcastle, during the years, 1949, 1950, 1951, respectively; and on what date his Department received a proposal for high-power mercury-vapour lighting on the road between Flash Lane and the Black Lion Hotel, Trent Vale.

Mr. Maclay: Accidents involving death or personal injury on the length of road from Trentham Park to the south-eastern boundary of Newcastle amounted to 38, including 2 deaths, in 1949; 49, including 2 deaths, in 1950; and 46, including 4 deaths, in 1951.
The length of road referred to in the last part of the Question is part of a much longer stretch of road, about the lighting of which the council approached my divisional road engineer in December, 1948. Formal applications in respect of parts of the scheme were submitted in December, 1949, and December, 1950. Preliminary approval of the whole scheme, including the section referred to, was given by my Department in February, 1951, and final plans have now been submitted for agreement before tenders are invited.

Mr. Smith: In view of the relatively short length of this road and the fact that the local Member has been pressing for action for years, now that the seriousness of the situation has been proved can the Minister say who has been responsible for the delay? Secondly, will he agree to give super-priority to this proposal?

Mr. Maclay: I confess that when I saw the details which I had to give in this reply, I was horrified by the delay that has been involved; but it has been a complicated question, and it has not only been my Department which has been involved in the difficulties. I could not commit myself to such a thing as super-priority at this stage for any particular scheme.

Mr. Smith: In view of the loss of life and the terrible tragedy, particularly among the working class who are forced to live along that main road, can we be told why the scheme cannot be given priority?

Mr. Maclay: Unfortunately, there are similar problems all over the country. I assure the hon. Member, however, that the whole context of this matter is being very carefully studied.

Mr. Ellis Smith: asked the Minister of Transport if he will treat as a matter of urgency the proposals made by the City of Stoke-on-Trent for dealing with the dangerous part of the main road between Flash Lane and the Black Lion Hotel, Trent Vale, by the immediate provision of traffic signals at several points, and a reduction of the speed limit between the two serious danger points.

Mr. Maclay: The Stoke-on-Trent City Council have made no such proposals to me, but I am investigating traffic condi


tions on this road and will, of course, give careful consideration to any representations they may make.

Mr. Ellis Smith: asked the Minister of Transport if he has considered the application made by the City of Stoke-on-Trent for more pedestrian crossings to be allowed in the city; what decision he has come to; and what steps he is authorising to minimise the dangers on the roads in the city.

Mr. Maclay: Yes, Sir. I have given this application very careful consideration and I am hoping to persuade the city council that it would be unwise to stripe as many crossings as they have asked for.
With regard to the last part of the Question, I am prepared to consider how far any improvement schemes submitted by the council can be authorised under the provision which, I hope, will be available for road safety schemes in 1952–53.

Mr. Smith: Is it correct that the city council have asked for 43 extra crossings? If so, is the Minister aware that a large number of residents in the area consider that that is the minimum number required?

Mr. Maclay: Without looking very carefully at my notes and holding up proceedings, I should not like to say the exact number. I feel, however, that with some further discussion it should be possible to reach a satisfactory solution to this problem.

Dr. Barnett Stross: Has the Minister Oven special attention, as I think he promised to do, to the problem of school children crossing the road as they leave school? Does he remember that the authority were particularly aggrieved about this?

Mr. Maclay: All these questions are being very fully kept in mind.

Accident Prevention

Sir Ian Fraser: asked the Minister of Transport, in view of the substantial increase in road accidents last year, what proposals he has to make to improve road safety.

Mr. Maclay: I hope that it will be possible to devote about £1½ million in the coming financial year to the improvement of road conditions at accident black spots. I have also under consideration

with my colleagues arrangements for extending adult patrols and mobile police patrols. I hope to receive at an early date recommendations from the Committee on Road Safety for the improvement of the Highway Code and for reducing accidents involving motor cyclists.
All this should help, but I would most earnestly appeal to all road users to remember that it is on their careful, courteous and considerate behaviour that road safety must mainly depend.

Sir I. Fraser: Can the Minister strengthen his means of communication and consultation with local authorities, seeing that many of them feel that their advice about the number and siting of crossings, and so on, would be of the greatest value?

Mr. Maclay: I feel that we try to get into the closest touch with local authorities. They are, of course, represented on the Road Safety Committee, of which my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary is Chairman. I am very anxious to get the best possible advice on the question of road safety.

Mr. Janner: asked the Minister of Transport whether, in view of the large number of accidents to children on the roads, he will issue a special short Highway Code for children in appropriate wording so that this can be available for them to be taught in schools and elsewhere.

Mr. Maclay: I have considered the hon. Member's suggestion carefully, but am not convinced that such a publication would be useful. The present official Highway Code can readily be used for training children in road safety and, as the hon. Member is no doubt aware, two unofficial highway codes for children have been produced by the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents.

Mr. Janner: As the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents has thought it advisable, may I ask whether the Minister considers they are reasonable people, anxious about safety? In the circumstances, is he not prepared to consider with the Minister of Education the publication of a very simple code, which might be learned by rote by school children so that accidents might be prevented?

Mr. Maclay: I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman has seen the Royal Society's booklets, which I will send to him. I think they are very good. It is doubtful whether we should duplicate the number of Highway Codes.

Sir Waldron Smithers: asked the Minister of Transport if he will recommend the appointment of a Royal Commission to inquire into the incidence of accidents on the roads; and to suggest remedies for reducing their number.

Mr. Maclay: I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave to the right hon. Member for Rochester and Chatham (Mr. Bottomley), on 25th February, of which I am sending him a copy.

Sir W. Smithers: Will my hon. Friend given an assurance that he is leaving no stone unturned to reduce the number of accidents, and please consult experts who are free from all political influence?

Mr. Maclay: Yes, I can give my hon. Friend my absolute assurance that I am treating this question of road accidents as one of the gravest questions we have to face, certainly in my Department.

Mr. A. G. Bottomley: Is the Minister aware that there is a need for co-ordination in Government Departments? The Road Safety Committee, which the hon. Gentleman said last week was handling the matter, cannot deal with that. It is only by focusing public attention on the whole of the matter by the appointment of a Royal Commission that that can be done.

Mr. George Thomas: Would the Minister say how far this problem is made worse by drivers being under the influence of drink when driving cars? If so, will he consider appointing a committee to advise him on special regulations for such persons?

Mr. Maclay: I do not think that that arises out of this Question.

Sir Robert Grimston: Has my hon. Friend considered getting, or is he getting, any information from the insurance companies on the incidence of accidents? There must be a great deal of information in their claims departments.

Mr. Maclay: Perhaps my hon. Friend would put that question on the Order Paper. It is an important point.

Sir Herbert Williams: asked the Minister of Transport when he next proposes to publish the report on road accidents.

Mr. Maclay: I assume that my hon. Friend has in mind the publication of an analysis of the road accident statistics. I hope to publish an analysis of the 1951 figures in due course.

Sir H. Williams: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, but does he realise that if only he had published that analysis, most of the Questions he has had to answer today would never have been tabled?

Mr. Maclay: That thought had crossed my mind.

Zebra Crossings

Mr. Nabarro: asked the Minister of Transport how far road accidents have been abated since introduction of zebra crossings.

Mr. Maclay: I regret that the trend in road accidents continues upwards, but it is much too early to draw from this any inference about zebra crossings. The introduction of these crossings has fundamentally altered the bases of comparison and no reliable statistical appreciation is practicable at this stage.

Mr. Nabarro: What trial period for zebra crossings is required to enable my hon. Friend to judge of their efficacy or otherwise?

Mr. Maclay: There are two points. One is the question of the zebra crossings themselves, and the other is the question of their effect on road accidents as a whole. As regards the latter, it will be some time before statistical evidence could be anything like conclusive, if statistical evidence ever can be.

Mr. Barnett Janner: Does not the hon. Gentleman realise that the incidence of accidents is, if anything, growing, and that it is very essential to assist in making zebra crossings useful both by day and night? Is it not a very urgent matter that ought to be dealt with at once?

Mr. Maclay: All these considerations are being looked at very urgently, and certain action is being taken. The Question I was answering was how far road accidents have been abated since the introduction of zebra crossings, which widens the subject very much from the


point which the hon. Member was making.

Mr. John E. Crowder: Will my hon. Friend do all he can to stop pedestrians from hovering on zebra crossings? According to the dictionary, the word "hover" means to be in a state of indecision, which, it seems to me, is generally the case with most pedestrians approaching these crossings.

Mr. Maclay: I did attempt, rather rashly, perhaps, to give some advice on that very subject last Thursday after the 9 p.m. news bulletin.

Mr. Cyril Bence: asked the Minister of Transport what action he is taking to establish zebra crossings in Milngavie, Dunbartonshire.

Mr. Maclay: The initiative for establishing pedestrian crossings rests with local authorities. I have recently approved an amended scheme submitted to me by the county council, who are the appropriate authority for classified roads. I understand that the town council have not striped any crossings on the unclassified roads for which they are responsible.

Mr. Bence: Is the Minister aware that in this borough in Dunbartonshire there are two classified roads passing through—Strathbane Road and the Glasgow Road—over which hundreds of school children have to cross daily, and that the local authority, who have removed the crossings from these roads, claim that the responsibility is the Minister's and not theirs? Will he see immediately that the crossings are re-established, because the parents concerned are contemplating not sending their children to school until the crossings have been replaced?

Mr. Maclay: As I said, I have recently approved an amended scheme. I am not aware that there is any outstanding difference of view between my divisional road engineer and the county council.

Mr. Bence: The amended scheme means that there is only one crossing, and not a crossing on these two roads. We want a zebra crossing on the Strathbane Road and on the Glasgow Road.

Mr. Janner: asked the Minister of Transport whether he is aware that in places where traffic is heavy some of the black and white crossings are already

badly worn and the surface is uneven: and whether he will take steps to ensure that the standard of maintenance of these crossings is kept at an appropriate level.

Mr. Maclay: I would refer the hon. Member to the answer that I gave on 25th February to the hon. Member for Cheadle (Mr. Shepherd).

Mr. Janner: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that serious accidents could be prevented if these crossings were kept in proper order? Are local authorities being requested to deal with the matter?

Mr. Maclay: Yes; in the answer to which I referred, I said:
I am drawing the attention of local authorities to the need to keep the stripes in reasonable condition."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 25th February, 1952: Vol. 496, c. 78.]
We are also, of course, carrying out experiments to see if we can get a better and more lasting method of marking zebra crossings.

Brigadier Medlicott: asked the Minister of Transport if he is aware of the greatly improved results which follow when pedestrian crossings are illuminated at night; and if he will endeavour to arrange for local authorities to agree upon a standard form of illumination and for this to be adopted throughout the whole country with all possible speed.

Mr. Maclay: As my hon. and gallant Friend will be aware, experiments on the lighting of pedestrian crossings have recently been carried out. I have quite recently received a report on these experiments, but I shall need to study it very carefully before I can come to a conclusion.

Brigadier Medlicott: is the Minister aware that there is some danger in encouraging pedestrians to use, in the daytime, a crossing which is almost invisible to motorists at night? Will he give special attention to what appears to be a highly successful experiment which has already been carried out?

Mr. Maclay: I am very much aware of that problem. I am studying the report and hope to make a decision in a reasonable time.

Brigadier O. L. Prior-Palmer: Is my hon. Friend aware that these crossings have been in existence in America for many years and that there they have


a system of lighting which can be seen at least a mile away? Will he go into that question?

Street Lighting

Brigadier Medlicott: asked the Minister of Transport if he is aware of the confusion caused to motorists by the widely differing types of street lighting used in the areas of different local authorities; and if he will arrange for a conclusion to be arrived at as to which is the most effective type, with a view to its adoption throughout the country.

Mr. Maclay: I have no strong evidence to show that differing types of street lighting cause confusion or that to standardise them would necessarily improve efficiency in lighting. Local lighting authorities are well aware of the recommendations made by the Departmental Committee on Street Lighting in 1935 and 1937 in favour of more uniform standards of illumination, and they have, with the encouragement of my Department, made considerable progress in this direction in spite of various difficulties.

Brigadier Medlicott: Is the Minister aware that, notwithstanding what he has said, a drive across London brings one into the most extraordinary variety of lighting which has a somewhat confusing effect on motorists? Surely this is one of the cases where, although local independent action may be a good thing, uniformity has a great deal to be said for it.

Mr. Maclay: Without going into a complex argument, I would say that there are disadvantages in absolute standardisation because streets are quite different—the colour of building materials and the height of buildings are different—but progress has been made towards reasonable standardisation of intensity of illumination.

Cross-Roads, Leytonstone

Mr. Arthur Lewis: asked the Minister of Transport if he has considered the dangerous conditions at the Thatched House cross-roads, Leytonstone, as detailed in the letter from Mr. H. C. Clissold, sent to him by the hon. Member for West Ham, North; and what action he proposes to take to eliminate this danger.

Mr. Maclay: I have just had the signal installation at these cross-roads inspected. The equipment itself was found to be in satisfactory condition, but the working of the installation will be carefully watched over the next two weeks and the matter then further considered.

Mr. Lewis: The Minister must have received the communication which I sent to him, and it will now be apparent to him that the trouble is that there are huge vans parked in front of the lights. Will he take some action to prevent the parking of vans within a specified distance of traffic lights?

Mr. Maclay: That point will be looked at with many other matters arising out of this investigation.

Children's Crossings, Oldbury

Mr. Arthur Moyle: asked the Minister of Transport if he is aware of the anxiety felt locally by the decision to remove children's road crossings in the borough of Oldbury, particularly the crossing outside Titford Road schools; and if he will consider favourably their reinstatement.

Mr. Maclay: I am firmly convinced that where children have to cross busy roads on their way to and from school, adult patrols are the right answer and that uncontrolled pedestrian crossings can, for young children, be more of a danger than a safeguard. I will, of course, give close consideration to the representations which in this particular case have again been made to me.

Mr. Moyle: In view of the representations which I have already made to the Minister on this matter, will he give special consideration, in view of the questionnaire signed by a thousand petitioners, to the restoration of the crossing outside the Titford Road school, and make it a controlled crossing?

Mr. Maclay: I will certainly give very careful consideration to that problem. I know what a grave one it is.

Haulage Industry

Mr. A. Edward Davies: asked the Minister of Transport when he expects to present to the House Her Majesty's Government's proposals for the future of the road haulage industry.

Mr. Maclay: I am not yet in a position to add to the statement made by my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary on 12th November during the debate on the Address.

Mr. Davies: Could the Minister tell us when he expects to be able to advance this matter?

Mr. Maclay: I cannot add to the statement I have just made.

Mr. James Callaghan: asked the Minister of Transport, in view of Her Majesty's Government's promised legislation on the subject of road haulage, how many road hauliers whose businesses were in process of being acquired when the present Government took office, have taken advantage of the offer to suspend the course of negotiations.

Mr. Maclay: I am informed by the British Transport Commission that 63 of the 95 hauliers concerned accepted the Commission's offer of postponement of the vesting date for six months.

Mr. Callaghan: As the 63 operators were in a more favourable position than many thousands who have been either acquired or are being restricted to the 25-mile limit, can the Minister tell the House what steps he will take to bring this favourable position to an end?

Mr. Maclay: That is another question which does not arise directly out of the Question on the Order Paper.

Oral Answers to Questions — DOCKS (MECHANISATION)

Mr. Steward: asked the Minister of Transport to increase the mechanisation of the docks, in view of the slow turn-round of shipping which is hampering the export drive.

Captain Robert Ryder: asked the Minister of Transport if he is aware of the need to speed up the turn-round of shipping in United Kingdom ports; and what action he is taking to effect an improvement in this vital matter.

Mr. George Jeger: asked the Minister of Transport what progress has been made in improving the turn-round of shipping in British ports since the report of the Working Party.

Mr. Maclay: The introduction of mechanised methods into dock working is primarily a matter for the undertakings concerned. The recommendations of the Working Party on the Turn-round of Shipping in United Kingdom Ports have been brought to the notice of the Dock and Harbour Authorities and the other interests concerned and have been followed up by my Department. I am not satisfied with the improvement achieved, and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Co-ordination of Transport, Fuel and Power and I are giving this matter our urgent consideration.

Mr. Steward: What is being done to get the co-operation of dockers and lightermen in the use of the latest mechanical appliances in port work?

Mr. Maclay: The hon. Member will realise that there have been a great many discussions on this question all over the country and that these are still being pursued.

Mr. George Jeger: Is the Minister aware that my Question is not concerned principally with mechanisation but with improving the turn-round of shipping, and that this is a matter of manpower as much as mechanisation? Is he further aware that in Goole, the port which I have the honour to represent, there is no shortage of mechanical appliances but there is a shortage of the requisite labour for manning those appliances?

Mr. Maclay: I would prefer to bring Goole to the attention of the Transport Commission.

Captain Ryder: Will my hon. Friend bear in mind that unless there is a rapid improvement in this matter, there is a great danger that the valuable entrepôt trade in the Port of London will be diverted to the Continental ports?

Mr. Maclay: My right hon. Friend and I are extremely concerned to improve the turn-round of shipping in British ports.

Oral Answers to Questions — BRITISH TRANSPORT COMMISSION

Office Building Costs

Major Guy Lloyd: asked the Minister of Transport the aggregate sum of money represented by past and current licences


issued by his Department for building, reconstructing, repairing or decorating accommodation for the office staff of the British Transport Commission and its various executives.

Mr. Maclay: So far as it can be separately assessed, expenditure on building and reconstruction of offices mainly of an administrative nature by the Commission and its Executives, has been authorised to the amount of £697,871. This figure includes expenditure on offices of the Executives throughout the country. The figures include repairs and decoration incidental to the building or reconstruction, but other repairs and decoration by these undertakings do not require authorisation or licensing.

Executive Members (Terms of Appointment)

Mr. Douglas Houghton: asked the Minister of Transport what undertakings were given by his Department with regard to their employment and pension rights when their terms of office expire in 1952 to the whole-time members of the Railway and London Transport Executives, who were previously chief officers of the main line railways and the London Passenger Transport Board, respectively.

Mr. Maclay: There are seven such members in the two Executives named. In the case of four of them, who will not reach the age of 60 this year, their terms of appointment provided that if they were not reappointed, or offered reasonably comparable employment, they would be entitled to such compensation as may be payable under the Regulations made under Section 101 of the Transport Act, 1947.
In the case of the other three members, their terms of appointment provided that their appointment as members did not deprive them of any right to compensation which they may have under the Regulations.

Mr. Houghton: Does that reply mean that in the event of these officers being re-employed by their former undertaking, those who have been promoted to follow them will be displaced?

Mr. Maclay: The hon. Member should study my reply, which was a little complicated, I admit. I shall be grateful if he will do so.

Consultative Committee, Scotland

Major W. J. Anstruther-Gray: asked the Minister of Transport what recommendations he has had from the Transport Users Consultative Committee for Scotland during 1951.

Mr. Maclay: Under the Transport Act minutes and recommendations of the Transport Users Consultative Committee for Scotland, and those for area committees are required to be sent to the Central Transport Consultative Committee for Great Britain, and not to me.
The Central Committee pass on to me such recommendations of the other committees as they deem proper. They followed this course in the matter of proposed alterations in the Clyde steamer services which I had remitted to the Scottish Committee for consideration.

Major Anstruther-Gray: Is my hon. Friend satisfied that due attention is paid to those recommendations when eventually they reach either his Department or the Transport Commission?

Mr. Maclay: It is a little difficult to give a categorical reply to that, except to say that there is no evidence that proper attention is not paid to them.

Major D. McCallum: Is my hon. Friend aware that one of the recommendations made by this Committee was made by a Committee that had no representative on it of the Clyde area? I refer to the recommendation about the Clyde steamers.

Mr. Maclay: I have noted that point.

Oral Answers to Questions — RAILWAYS

Permanent Way Maintenance

Mr. Hector Hughes: asked the Minister of Transport if, in view of the fact that the permanent ways of the railway systems of this island should be made national assets owing to their use in both peace and war and should be maintained at national expense, he will consult the Chancellor of the Exchequer, with a view to introducing legislation to this effect.

Mr. Maclay: No, Sir. I see no ground for such action.

Mr. Hughes: Does the Minister realise that permanent way maintenance cost is


the chief obstacle in the way of our railways being used as a really national service? Is the Minister anxious that the railways should be used as a national service, and if so, will he remove this obstacle?

Mr. Maclay: The suggestion of the hon. and learned Member has been put forward on a good many occasions in the past. It has been studied very many times, and I do not think I can add to the reply I have given.

Freight Charges, West Cumberland

Mr. Frederick Peart: asked the Minister of Transport if he will make regulations under Section 82 of the Transport Act, 1947, to provide for special railway freight charges for the Development Area of West Cumberland.

Mr. Maclay: No, Sir. I do not think that it would be practicable to deal with this matter by regulations under Section 82 of the Transport Act. The issues involved are appropriate for consideration in connection with the Charges Scheme which will, in due course, govern railway rates. In the meantime, any question of reducing the basic rates to and from a particular area is one for the British Transport Commission and, in certain circumstances, for the Transport Tribunal.

Mr. Peart: Will the Minister reconsider this if I send him a memorandum on it, in view of our special geographical difficulties and the fact that West Cumberland is in a special category, being a Development Area?

Mr. Maclay: I will certainly study the memorandum.

Mr. W. M. F. Vane: Will my hon. Friend bear in mind that there are other parts of Cumberland, besides the constituency of the hon. Member opposite, which find these railway charges very onerous, and will he consider the North-West of England as a whole?

Mr. Maclay: In addition to Cumberland, there is the whole of the South-West area and Scotland.

Footbridge, Bury (Collapse)

Mrs. Barbara Castle: asked the Minister of Transport whether, in view of the unsatisfactory state of some railway

property revealed by the collapse of a footbridge at Bury Station on 19th January, he will examine the need for an increase in the capital investment programme of the railways.

Mr. Maclay: I am advised that the collapse of the wooden footbridge at Bury cannot be ascribed to any limitation of the railway capital investment programme. In regard to the general question of restrictions on capital investment, the needs of the railways have been given very full consideration by H.M. Government in deciding on the proper allocation of available capital resources.

Mrs. Castle: Is the Minister aware that this accident has caused widespread concern as revealing the antiquated nature of much railway property which the Railway Executive cannot deal with because of the limitations on its capital investment programme? Does he not agree that the railways ought to have an extremely high priority in capital investment in view of the deplorable state of the railways when the Railway Executive took them over?

Mr. Maclay: I must confine myself to the limited application of the hon. Lady's Question, which was not a question of the capital investment involved, but the erosion of a number of wrought iron supports.

Mrs. Castle: Does the Minister agree that the bridge was a very antiquated structure and of a kind which made its proper examination very difficult? Is it not part of the legacy of out-of-date equipment which ought to be modernised?

Mr. Maclay: All of us realise, of course, the great need for increased capital investment in the railways. It is entirely a matter of relative priorities in a very difficult period.

Sir W. Smithers: Is it not a fact that the general deterioration of railway property is entirely due to nationalisation?

Mr. Ellis Smith: Did investigation show that the iron work could not be seen by the naked eye, as it was covered by woodwork, and that only when the woodwork was removed could the state of the iron be seen? If so, could arrangements be made to obviate that kind of thing in future?

Mr. Maclay: I would need notice of the detail of that Question, but the fact is that improved methods of inspection of railway bridges have been introduced, and were introduced shortly before this accident took place, but unfortunately they had not been used on this particular bridge.

Huskisson Goods Station, Liverpool (Reconstruction)

Mr. A. Hargreaves: asked the Minister of Transport what capital expenditure he has authorised on the rebuilding scheme for Huskisson Goods Station, Liverpool; and if he has yet authorised a licence for the work.

Mr. Maclay: An authorisation was issued on 5th February, 1952, for expenditure of £195,018 on the reconstruction of the Huskisson Goods Station, Liverpool.

Raw Materials (Supply)

Mr. David Jones: asked the Minister of Transport what representations he has received from the railway trade unions about the dismissal of hundreds of skilled craftsmen from the railway workshops because of the shortage of raw materials, particularly steel, and about the effect on railway workshop efficiency of the break-up of the labour force; and what steps he proposes to take to remedy this state of affairs.

Mr. A. J. Champion: asked the Minister of Transport what steps he is taking to secure a sufficient allocation of steel to enable the Transport Commission to proceed with necessary renewals of railway equipment and to prevent a further loss of skilled staff from the railway workshops.

Mr. Maclay: In January the National Union of Railwaymen made representations to me in general terms on this subject. My colleagues and I are naturally concerned about the effect of shortages of raw materials on the efficiency of the railways and on railway staffs. I can assure the hon. Members that the Government fully appreciate the extent of the railways' needs and as soon as it is possible their supplies will be increased.

Mr. Jones: Does the Minister realise that the increasing inefficiency in the

railway service is largely due to the shortage of steel precluding the Commission from bringing' up-to-date their rolling stock? The shortage of steel is causing the break-up of the qualified labour force which was got together to build rolling stock if they could get the steel.

Mr. Maclay: I realise the serious consequences of the shortage of steel, but we have to remember that this applies to other industries as well. The railways are kept very fully in mind at all times.

Mr. William Ross: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the break-up of the skilled labour force will be greatly increased in Scotland by the deliberate closing of a century-old railway workshop in Kilmarnock? Will he look into this matter very quickly, because it will eventually affect the whole of Scotland?

Mr. Maclay: The hon. Member will realise that under the 1947 Act, detailed decisions on individual works is a matter for the Transport Commission and the Railway Executive.

Mr. Ross: Does not the Minister realise that this is a matter of policy on centralisation which will affect not only one area but Scotland as well, and that he will be landed with a considerable amount of trouble on his shoulders if it is not looked into quickly?

Mr. Maclay: The policy of centralisation is certainly not the fault of this Government.

Mr. Ross: If the hon. Gentleman is opposed to centralisation, why does he not do something about it?

Mr. Jones: The Minister cannot ride off in the way he has just done. Is he aware that what is wrong with railway workshops is cuts in the allocation of steel, not only in Scotland, but in this country as well, and that they are having to discharge hundreds of skilled men?

Mr. Maclay: My previous reply was directed to the supplementary question from the hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross). I have said that we are very conscious indeed of the consequences of the shortage of steel for the railways, and the Government are determined to do what they can, in relation to other priorities, to meet the needs of the railways.

Mr. D. Jones: asked the Minister of Transport whether he is aware that more than 100,000 wagons still in use are about 40 years of age; that many passenger coaches and locomotives are of the same age; that their maintenance in service is inefficient; that the allocation of steel to the Railway Executive is insufficient to meet their day-to-day replacement needs; and what steps he is taking to see that additional supplies are made available.

Mr. Maclay: Yes, Sir. We are fully aware of the railways' needs and are most concerned that they cannot at present be met, but steel supplies are so short that no users have all they need, even for essential purposes. While the railways' allocation of steel compares not unfavourably with the allocations for other essential uses, the urgent need to improve their allocation as soon as possible is fully recognised.

Mr. Jones: Is the Minister aware that as these vehicles continue to operate the standard of efficiency of the railways diminishes, that more steel is being allocated to certain other industries than is required, and that there will be repetitions of the kind of accident that occurred at Bury unless greater supplies of steel are allocated to the industry?

Oral Answers to Questions — MINISTRY OF SUPPLY

Shaving Brushes (Sale)

Mr. William Shepherd: asked the Minister of Supply why 200 sacks of shaving brushes were declared by the storage depot at Byley, Middlewich, to be surplus to requirements; what was the price paid for these brushes; and what was the price realised at auction in November, 1951.

The Minister of Supply (Mr. Duncan Sandys): The articles referred to were declared surplus because shaving brushes are no longer issued to the Army. They were manufactured in India during the war and the cost cannot now be traced. They were sold by auction for £2,165.

Secondhand Cars (Price)

Miss Elaine Burton: asked the Minister of Supply if he will control the selling price of secondhand cars.

Mr. Sandys: No, Sir. This would not be practicable.

Miss Burton: I do not know if the right hon. Gentleman ever has time to go along St. Martin's Lane, but may I ask if he is aware that if he had gone along that lane in the past fortnight he would have seen in a showroom there a September, 1951, Ford Consul, mileage 500, selling for £1,475? Is he aware that the list price of that same car today, including Purchase Tax, is £717 1s. 1d., and does he agree that that should be be allowed?

Mr. Sandys: I have not been for a walk along St. Martin's Lane, but I am quite ready to accompany the hon. Lady. As for her Question, I am advised that, short of engaging an army of inspectors at a very great expense, it would be quite impossible to devise a scheme which would not be open to wholesale evasion.

Miss Burton: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that I should be delighted to accept his invitation and that I hope it will not empty the showrooms along St. Martin's Lane? Does he know, further, that had he gone to these same showrooms in January he would have found there a November, 1951, Vauxhall, mileage 745, selling at £1,485, and that the selling price today, including tax, is £802?

Mr. Sandys: It seems that the hon. Lady and I would have to go there regularly.

Jet Engine Development

Mr. Wedgwood Benn: asked the Minister of Supply whether the recent criticisms of British jet engine development made by Sir Frank Whittle were made with his consent; and what steps he is taking to improve development.

Mr. Sandys: Sir Frank Whittle no longer has any official connection with the Ministry of Supply. The first part of the Question does not, therefore, arise. With regard to the second part, I do not consider that his criticisms call for any changes in our development policy.

Mr. Benn: Is the Minister aware that Sir Frank Whittle has been offered a very highly paid post in the United States and is considering accepting it? Would he consider discussing the matter with Sir Frank both in order to go over the development programme and also in an attempt to retain the services of this distinguished scientist in this country?

Mr. Sandys: I am well aware of the contribution which Sir Frank Whittle has made to British aircraft development. 'I he Ministry of Supply know his views on jet engine development. He is a strong advocate of the advantages of the centrifugal as opposed to the axial compressor system, but I do not think that we can discuss this technical matter at Question time.

New Cars (Deposits)

Miss Burton: asked the Minister of Supply whether he is aware that some motor car traders are refusing to return deposits when requested to do so by the depositors, and that some have been held since 1946 and amount to £40 or more; and if he will take powers to require the return of all deposits upon request.

Mr. Sandys: I am aware of this problem and have discussed it with the representative associations of the motor industry. They inform me that they have decided to recommend their members to return deposits if requested, except in the case of high-priced cars or where the car is likely to be delivered at an early date.

Miss Burton: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that I shall have much pleasure in giving him further information tonight on my Adjournment, and that I have the permission of my informant to disclose that Gordon Cars, Ltd., of Golders Green Road, are refusing to return deposits of £40 and more which have been made on these low-priced cars? Would he look into the matter?

Mr. David Renton: On a point of order. The hon. Lady has indicated that she will be raising this matter on the Adjournment this evening. Is it therefore in order for her to continue to question the Minister?

Mr. Speaker: The questions of the right hon. Lady are in order so far.

Retired Armament Workers (Employment)

Mr. Steward: asked the Minister of Supply if he will re-employ retired skilled armament workers in view of the shortage of skilled labour in the ordnance factories.

Mr. Sandys: Yes, Sir. We are already doing so. We welcome applications for employment from retired skilled workers, though we cannot, of course, guarantee that there will always be suitable vacancies for them.

Mr. Steward: Will the Minister consider recommending to the Minister of Labour that a register of these retired skilled workers should be kept at the employment exchanges, in order that some of them can be offered employment when it is available?

Mr. Sandys: I will certainly draw the attention of my right hon. and learned Friend to that suggestion, but the point is that there is no unwillingness to employ these retired craftsmen. We would welcome more applications for re-employment.

Redundant Tram Rails

Mr. Porter: asked the Minister of Supply whether, in view of the amount of redundant tram track available as scrap, he has yet come to any conclusion as to the possibility of reimbursing local authorities in regard to the difference in the value of scrap steel made available and the cost of reconditioning the highways concerned.

Mr. Sandys: The iron and steel industry is giving financial assistance to local authorities in order to encourage the recovery of tram rails for scrap. The amount of financial assistance varies according to local circumstances.

Mr. Porter: Is the Minister aware that there is a certain amount of responsibility to be taken by him to force local authorities to lift these lines, as they are first-rate steel and would make a most valuable contribution to other production?

Mr. Sandys: I do not think that "force" is quite the right word. I should not like to force the local authorities. The Ministry of Supply has no funds with which to subsidise the collection of scrap. It is done by the industry itself, which has already obtained tram rails from 11 different towns, and is hoping to collect something like 50,000 tons of steel scrap from these sources.

Oral Answers to Questions — ROYAL COMMISSION ON TAXATION (CHAIRMANSHIP)

Mr. Douglas Jay: asked the Prime Minister what steps he took to ascertain whether suitable candidates, with no declared political views, were available


before he recommended the appointment of Lord Waverley as Chairman of the Royal Commission on Taxation of Profits and Income.

The Prime Minister (Mr. Winston Churchill): Every appropriate step was taken in this as in other cases.

Mr. Jay: Will the Prime Minister assure us that, at the second attempt, he will find a genuinely independent Chairman? Further, as the terms of reference of the Commission were altered at the request of Lord Waverley, will he now restore the original terms of reference; and third, will he, in future, in this matter and in others, observe the same constitutional rules as the rest of us?

The Prime Minister: I dare say that there will be difficulties in finding people of the necessary distinction to face the insults that may be offered them by the Socialist Party. However, we will do our best.

Mr. Hugh Gaitskell: May I ask the Prime Minister whether he really regards it as an insult to say that a man holds strong views on the subject of taxation? May I also press him on the point raised by my right hon. Friend, and ask him if it is the fact that the terms of reference of the Commission were altered at the request of Lord Waverley?

The Prime Minister: I must have notice of that.

Oral Answers to Questions — CORONATION STONE

Mr. John Rankin: asked the Prime Minister what Scottish authorities were consulted by him, and on what dates, before he reached his decision about the disposal of the Coronation Stone.

Mr. Ross: asked the Prime Minister who and what organisations were consulted before the decision was reached to return the Stone of Destiny to Westminster Abbey.

The Prime Minister: The consultations were necessarily confidential, and I could not properly disclose with whom they took place.

Mr. Rankin: Will the Prime Minister make one point quite clear? Is his decision affecting the disposal of the Stone

merely a temporary one, covering the period of the Coronation? If he refuses to disclose the sources of his advice on this matter, is he aware that he is treating responsible Scottish opinion very shabbily indeed?

The Prime Minister: The decision applies to the times in which we live, and it is open to any Parliament at any time to sustain their Ministers in taking a different decision.

Mr. Rankin: Is the decision merely temporary, then?

Mr. Ross: Does the Prime Minister appreciate that the Questions merely ask for the names of the people and organisations consulted, and not for the actual advice which they gave him? Is he asking us to understand that he cannot tell the people of Scotland who were the eminent Scottish authorities whom he consulted?

The Prime Minister: No names, no pack drill.

Mr. A. Woodburn: As to the ultimate destination of the Stone, is the Prime Minister aware that a good deal of feeling has been caused among those who have not been consulted and who believe that they have been treated rather discourteously, in view of the attitude taken up to now?

Mr. Emrys Hughes: Is the Prime Minister aware that he has placed the Dean of Westminster in a most unfortunate position, and that the Dean of Westminster is now wondering whether, on the Day of Judgment, he will appear with the Prime Minister on a charge of accepting stolen property?

The Prime Minister: I should have thought that the hon. Member would have been more concerned with the future of the Dean of Canterbury

Mr. Raymond Gower: Is my right hon. Friend aware that if a neutral resting place is desired for this Stone, we can doubtless give it temporary accommodation in Wales?

Mr. Rankin: May I ask the Prime Minister if, in reaching his decision, he consulted the hon. and gallant Member for East Perth (Colonel Gomme- Duncan)?

Oral Answers to Questions — OVERSEAS BROADCASTS MINISTERIAL RESPONSIBILITY

Captain Ryder: asked the Prime Minister which Minister is responsible for external broadcasting from this country.

The Prime Minister: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs is responsible for the supervision and direction of external broadcasting to foreign countries, and my right hon. Friends the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations and the Secretary of State for the Colonies are similarly responsible in their respective spheres.
The B.B.C. produce the material under the above general guidance.

Captain Ryder: Will my right hon. Friend appreciate the enormous importance of this service which is rendered by the B.B.C.? In view of the economies now being called for, is he satisfied that this branch is being adequately protected against any damage?

The Prime Minister: That goes far beyond the scope of the Question on the Order Paper.

Oral Answers to Questions — N.A.T.O. (COMMONWEALTH CONSULTATIONS)

Mr. Richard Adams: asked the Prime Minister what consultations have taken place with other members of the Commonwealth regarding this country's commitments in the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation.

The Prime Minister: The other Commonwealth countries are kept informed of the defence commitments of the United Kingdom, and are consulted whenever such commitments are likely to be of particular concern to them. Canada is, of course, a member of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation.

Mr. Adams: In view of that reply, can the Prime Minister make any comment on the observations of the Australian Minister of External Affairs last Friday week, when he complained that that part of the Commonwealth was not kept fully informed of the arrangements made with N.A.T.O.?

The Prime Minister: I should have thought that the United Kingdom, in its

position as a member both of N.A.T.O. and of the Commonwealth, is in a unique position to act as interpreter of the one to the other.

Mr. Gordon Walker: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that there is a real problem here of how to give countries like Australia and New Zealand some say in the running of N.A.T.O., which, although a regional organisation, is really a world-wide one which will affect the interests of those countries?

The Prime Minister: We have a Secretary of State charged with the duty of keeping the various Commonwealths fully informed on all matters, and of making the general movement of the British Commonwealth of Nations proceed harmoniously.

Mr. Gordon Walker: Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that I am not dealing with the question of keeping these countries informed, which I am sure is properly done, but with the more difficult question of associating them with the running of N.A.T.O., whose actions may well concern them?

The Prime Minister: There are many difficulties at the present time in the relations of so many different countries—States separated all over the world—but their truest link is their own cause.

Oral Answers to Questions — U.S. ATOM BOMBERS (BRITISH BASES)

Mr. Emrys Hughes: asked the Prime Minister how far the agreement with President Truman, that there should be joint consultation before American atom bombers should operate from bases in Britain, applies to British air bases outside Britain.

The Prime Minister: As was stated in the communiqué issued in Washington on 9th January, the agreement between President Truman and myself on this point applies to bases in the United Kingdom.

Mr. Hughes: Does not the Prime Minister agree that the same considerations should prevail about Cyprus, where the people are equally concerned about what an atom bomb raid might do to them?

The Prime Minister: I thought my answer dealt with that, because I said that the agreement applied to bases in the United Kingdom.

HONG KONG (DISTURBANCE)

Mr. John Dugdale: (by Private Notice)asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he has any statement to make on the recent disturbance in Hong Kong.

The Secretary of State for the Colonies (Mr. Oliver Lyttelton): Yes, Sir. I welcome the opportunity to make a statement on the disturbance in Hong Kong last Saturday, since some of the published reports were exaggerated.
In November last year a fire broke out in Tung Tao village, an area just east of Kowloon, and some 10,000 persons were made homeless. The Hong Kong Government took immediate steps to resettle the homeless. A few weeks ago a group of people from Canton, styling themselves the Comfort Mission, proposed to visit the Colony and distribute aid to the "Tung Tao Village Fire Victims." These persons made unofficial approaches to ascertain whether they could enter Hong Kong and were told that permission would not be given for the Mission as such to enter the Colony.
On 27th February, inquiries were made whether representatives of the donors of money collected in Canton, as distinct from a Comfort Mission, would be allowed entry the next day. These inquiries were answered to the effect that if written application were made and a programme submitted, consideration would be given to the request, but that any visit could not take place before 9th March. This was the position on the night of Friday, 29th February.
On the morning of Saturday the Hong Kong Government learnt that the Chinese Chamber of Commerce had heard by telephone from Canton that the proposed visit of the Comfort Mission was postponed. It is understood that this information was passed to the Federation of Trades Unions, but it seems that the rank and file of these Unions continued in ignorance of the true position. A large crowd assembled at Kowloon railway station to greet the 3 p.m. train on which they had been led to expect that the Mission would arrive.
In the meantime, a welcome party had set out for the border, but as they did not possess passes for the frontier zone they were held on its perimeter, and one of the party went on to the border to meet the Mission, which had spent the night at Shum Chun, just across the frontier. Later he returned with his party to Kowloon and announced to those assembled that the Mission had been postponed.
The crowds proceeded to disperse. However, a false rumour started that the Mission had actually arrived and was being detained in the border area and a group or groups in the crowd who had come prepared to cause trouble thereupon proceeded to do so. A police vehicle and two private cars were overturned and a police station was stoned. The police used tear gas and a Chinese police lance-corporal, finding himself about to be overrun by the mob, fired one round from a shotgun, slightly wounding three Chinese males, who were detained in hospital overnight.
No lives have been lost and about 12 persons have been treated for minor injuries. Normal conditions were restored by about 5.45 p.m. on Saturday, but a Government spokesman advised people, in their own interests, to stay at home as far as possible on Saturday night. A number of arrests were made. The situation is quiet.

Mr. Dugdale: In the first place, may I associate Members on this side of the House with any tribute which may be paid to the heroism and the success of the conduct of our troops and police in what must have been a very difficult situation indeed? Second, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether, to reassure the people in Hong Kong, he will inform the House what steps have been taken to provide adequate comfort and relief for those people who suffered from the fire in November'?

Mr. Lyttelton: First of all, let me make it quite clear that no troops were used, only police. I do, of course, agree that the police handled the matter with great efficiency. I must ask the right hon. Gentleman to put down a Question about the exact state of the housing projects—I saw some of them myself—to house the homeless.

Mr. Geoffrey Bing: Are we to understand from the right hon. Gentleman's reply that a body of people had collected a sum of money for the relief of the suggested destitution there, and would not it be a good thing that we should say one word of thanks if they have so done?

Mr. Lyttelton: The Governor quite rightly said that he would be prepared to consider receiving a representative of the donors if they would kindly submit a scheme. They have not done so.

Mr. John Paton: Did not the trouble really arise because of the assembly of a crowd of people which afterwards became disorderly, and is not it strange that in the official communiqué the curious phrase, "It is understood that the postponement of the visit of the delegation at Hong Kong was conveyed to the Federation of Trade Unions," is used? Cannot the Hong Kong Government say definitely whether that information was conveyed or not?

Mr. Lyttelton: The matter is necessarily in the disposition of the Hong Kong Government. They understand, and so do I, that that information was conveyed.

Mr. Paton: Cannot it be said whether it was or not?

Mr. Dugdale: Will the Minister say quite definitely what has been done to meet the difficulties of these people, because it would be of great assistance to everyone in Hong Kong to know what steps have been taken by the Government?

Mr. Lyttelton: If the right hon. Gentleman is referring to the housing of the 10,000 persons, he must be aware that that housing scheme is in being and is now in an advanced stage. I think he wants to know exactly what stage it has now reached and, if so, I shall be glad to look into the point.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Mr. C. R. Attlee: May I ask the Leader of the House whether he has any statement to make about today's business?

The Minister of Health (Mr. Harry Crookshank): Yes, Sir. The subject for debate today will be Manpower and Productivity. This will arise on the Committee stage of the Civil Vote on Account.

Ordered,
That notwithstanding anything in Standing Order No. 7 (Time for taking Private Business) any Private Business set down for consideration at Seven o'Clock this evening by direction of the Chairman of Ways and Means may be taken after Nine o'Clock.—[The Prime Minister.]

Orders of the Day — SUPPLY

[2ND ALLOTTED DAY]

Considered in Committee.

[Colonel Sir CHARLES MACANDREW in the Chair]

CIVIL ESTIMATES AND ESTIMATES FOR REVENUE DEPARTMENTS TOGETHER WITH ESTIMATE FOR THE MINISTRY OF DEFENCE, 1952–53 (VOTE ON ACCOUNT)

Motion made and Question proposed,
That a sum, not exceeding £918,376,000 be granted to Her Majesty, on account, for or towards defraying the charges for the following Civil and Revenue Departments and for the Ministry of Defence for the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1953, namely:

CIVIL ESTIMATES


CLASS I




£


1.
House of Lords
35,000


2.
House of Commons
300,000


3.
Registration of Electors
300,000


4.
Treasury and Subordinate Departments
1,150,000


5.
Privy Council Office
11,000


6.
Privy Seal Office.
2,500


7.
Charity Commission
27,000


8.
Civil Service Commission
133,000


9.
Exchequer and Audit Department
147,000


10.
Government Actuary
15,000


11.
Government Chemist
80,500


12.
Government Hospitality
25,000


13.
The Mint
10


14.
National Debt Office
10


15.
National Savings Committee
265,000


16.
Overlapping Income Tax Payments
3,500


17.
Public Record Office
30,500


18.
Public Works Loan Commission
10


19.
Repayments to the Local Loans Fund.
6,000


20.
Royal Commissions, &amp;c.
49,870


21.
Secret Service.
1,500,000


22.
Tithe Redemption Commission
10


23.
Silver
10


24.
American Aid Counterpart Funds
400,000


25.
Miscellaneous Expenses
50,500



Scotland:—



26.
Scottish Home Department
285,000


27.
Scottish Record Office
9,500

£



Scotland:—



14.
Public Education
9,100,000


15.
National Galleries
12,000


16.
National Library
6,500

REVENUE DEPARMENTS




£


1.
Customs and Excise
3,860,000


2.
Inland Revenue
11,000,000


3.
Post Office
70,000,000



Total for Revenue Departments
£84,860,000



Ministry of Defence
£5,800,000



Total for Civil Estimates and Estimates for Revenue Departments together with Estimate for the Ministry of Defence
£918,376,000

MANPOWER AND PRODUCTIVITY

3.39 p.m.

Mr. Alfred Robens: This is to be a short debate but, I believe, an important one. I want to make my remarks short in order that as many hon. Members as possible on both sides of the Committee may be able to take part in this debate on what is, to me, one of the most important aspects of our economic life. I hope to be non-controversial, because I believe that if we are critical on this matter we must be constructively critical, and therefore I hope to frame my remarks in that way. It may well be that where there is a clash of interest and a direct clash in policy between my hon. Friends and the Government, that may be regarded as controversial, but I can assure hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite that we are anxious to be constructive in any criticisms we make.
We had an economic debate in January, and the country and the House of Commons had the opportunity of realising the seriousness of the economic situation in which the country finds itself. As a result of Government action, there has been a whole series of cuts which I am certain no one regards as being the solution to the problem, but which are regretted even by those who believe in them as expedients. Cuts are like a blood-letting; they may give some relief, but if they are continued they weaken the patient until finally he dies.
There is only one way in which we can get out of our difficulties and that is by hard, intensive work, increased productivity and great expansion of our industry. I believe that the general public in this country are better informed

today on economic matters than they have ever been before, but, despite that fact, I also believe there are very few people indeed who really realise how grave the situation is.
I do not want to worry the Committee with figures, nor do I want to get bogged down in too much detail, because of the shortness of the time we have at our disposal; but I think that two sets of figures show clearly what we are up against. Before the war our foreign investment income was about £200 million—I use round figures—and our imported food costs were £400 million. Today our foreign investment income is down to £100 million and our imported food costs are £1,000 million. I believe that those two sets of figures show very graphically how hard we have to work to turn out goods to pay even for the foodstuffs with which to keep ourselves alive.
I have said that I do not think the series of cuts which the Government have made are likely to be successful and that the only way out is a great increase in production. Where do the Government come into this? I believe that the way in which a Government is able to influence production at all is by the atmosphere it creates. After all, Governments do not run factories and they are not in a position to direct the managements about technical research, new methods and so on; but, by virtue of their authority, they are in a position to create the atmosphere in which production can go on apace.
I think that under the Labour Administration, despite all that was said about it, we created an atmosphere in which industrial production was able to go on apace. Indeed, the figures show it. From pre-war until we left office, Industrial production rose by 50 per cent., output per man rose by 26 per cent., and exports rose by 80 per cent. That was a very creditable performance. It reflects great credit upon workers and managements in industry, and still greater credit upon the Government that created the right kind of climate in which that could happen.—[Interruption.]—There we are, when I state facts that can be checked in the Library, they become controversial. If the hon. Member for Cheadle (Mr. Shepherd), wants to controvert them, and, if he is fortunate


enough to be called, he can put his point of view. But these facts are inescapable.

Mr. William Shepherd: rose—

Mr. Robens: I hope the hon. Member will not interrupt at this stage. I will give way later. It is interesting that a "Bulletin for Industry" should have been published by the Information Division of the Treasury on the eve of this debate. It is important to note the statement contained therein that our industrial production is no longer going up. It states:
Compared with an annual increase of 8 per cent. or so in 1948–50, it was only 3 per cent. higher in 1951 than in 1950, and most of this smaller increase occurred in the first half of the year.
The Government must face this. It is a very dangerous trend and, unless it is corrected, there is no hope for a better standard of living for the people of this country. The only thing that will face them will be a very severe depression in the standards they already enjoy. At the same time time, I believe that it is within the capacity, and certainly within the influence, of any Government to get down to the job of creating the atmosphere in which production can go up.
It is here that there is a great difference of opinion between my hon. Friends and myself and the hon. Members on the Government benches. We believe fundamentally that one can guarantee, and indeed obtain, increased production only within a full employment policy. Although the Government themselves may say that they believe in a full employment policy, there are hon. Members opposite and many industrialists of this country who have been foolish enough to make public speeches suggesting to the workers that the only spur to greater effort is the fear of unemployment.

Mr. Cyril Osborne: indicated dissent

Mr. Robens: It is no use the hon. Member for Louth (Mr. Osborne) shaking his head, because I could read one of his speeches; but I do not want to be controversial. Hon. Members should read "Lloyds Bank Review" and many of the speeches made at

dinners and functions, and some of the speeches made in foreign countries by people who used to sit on the Front Bench of the Tory Party and who talk about empty bellies being the only things that make Englishmen work. Those are silly things to say. I do not pay much attention to them because most of these people are political nonentities, but it is important when industrialists say these things.

Mr. Osborne: I am obliged to the right hon. Gentleman for giving way, since he has mentioned me specifically. I know that quotation, but I would remind him and his hon. Friends who use it so often that there are lots of dots in the version they use, which show that something has been left out. The quotation I used was taken from reports by productivity teams, composed of managements and workers, who came from America and said what I said—that the two ways to get increased production were to offer higher rewards and to provide some corrective to the unwilling worker.

Mr. Robens: I understand that the hon. Member now wants to explain something he said but, for the sake of the record, may I quote to him the Manchester Guardian"? That paper said:
Mr. Cyril Osborne, the Tory M.P. for Louth, said,' There must be some corrective for the unwilling worker …. The trade unions would be assisted in their drive for greater production and better work by some fear of unemployment.'
It really does not matter whether the hon. Member for Louth said he was quoting from somebody else or not. He said it and passed it on, and undoubtedly in the ranks of the workers, who are able to read very well indeed, men say, "There is another Tory M.P. who believes that fear of unemployment is the thing to make us work." I could spend a lot of time reading these quotations, but I do not want to be controversial. I merely want to state what is a well-known fact and one which cannot be denied by the hon. and right hon. Members opposite.
There is a large number of speeches by politicians of the Tory Party and by big industrialists who, whatever they meant, have given the impression to the workers of this country that they believe


that a nice pool of unemployment is the best thing to make a chap work. I sympathise with the Minister of Labour about this, for it is making his task very difficult indeed. In that atmosphere one cannot expect to get an intensive effort on the part of the workers. They will resent the introduction of any new techniques and machines if they feel that the result of accepting them will be that either they or their fellow workers will have to walk to the employment exchange and draw unemployment pay. They just will not accept them.
That is why the policy of the Labour Party of having full employment was right. It proved itself to be right, because we got increased productivity. What has happened recently? In October, the unemployment figure was 263,000, in November, it went up to 290,000, in December, it was 303,000, and in January, 378,000. In themselves those figures are not alarming when they are compared with the 23½ million people employed in this country. The point which is alarming—and I should be glad if the right hon. and learned Gentleman would confirm or deny this, because I am not in the position of having the advice of his experts—is that, in my view, before the end of the year the unemployment figure will reach one million. There will have to be very vigorous action on the part of the Government to prevent it, and events will show whether my view about that is right.

Mr. R. J. Mellish: Will not my right hon. Friend agree that there are many married women who are no longing working—because they have been pushed out of employment—and who are not included in the figure?

Mr. Robens: That may be so. The figure of the total number of people employed will reveal that fact.
Although I have put the matter, as I see it, from the point of view of the atmosphere that must be created in order to get increased productivity, let me say that all my hon. Friends on this side of the Committee will co-operate wholeheartedly in urging the workers of this country to go on consulting with managements, and we will do all that we possibly can to help the productivity drive which is so essential for this country if it is to survive.

Mr. Martin Lindsay: Does the right hon. Gentleman appreciate that his statement that there may be one million unemployed by the end of this year will have the most damaging effect on productivity, because people will feel they are going to work themselves out of their jobs? His remark was most unhealthy.

Mr. Robens: That just shows the importance with which a statement from this side of the Committee is regarded.

Mr. Lindsay: It will hit the headlines.

Mr. Robens: if hon. Gentlemen opposite want to have a row in this debate, I shall be quite happy but I thought we might get to the problems we are discussing. I was saying that we are prepared to do all we possibly can to help in the production drive.

Mr. Lindsay: Then do not make remarks like that.

Mr. Robens: I am sure that the Minister of Labour would be the first to say that since he has been in office he has received the closest co-operation on this matter from the T.U.C., and that the T.U.C. and all responsible leaders of organised labour—and Labour politicians—are really backing this great campaign because they realise the seriousness of the matter.
The thing that bothers me is that, while the Minister of Labour has to take the responsibility for these figures, he is a prisoner of Conservative policy. If his right hon. Friends the President of the Board of Trade and the Minister of Supply do not take action at the right time—or if they take the wrong action—he has to shoulder the burden. I give him the friendly tip that he will have to stand up to these two Departments if he is to retain full control over the full employment policy. He may want full employment—I believe he does—but his right hon. Friends can prevent the success of a full employment policy if they are not alive to what is absolutely essential for full employment—that is, the need for control and planning.
That is another point on which we disagree so much with hon. Gentlemen opposite. We were a Government who believed in economic planning. We believed in controls. Hon. Gentlemen opposite used to sneer at us daily because


we were a Government of planners. Now what has happened? The Government do not believe in controls and do not believe in planning, but they are now compelled to do the very things in which they do not believe; and I feel that someone who is compelled to do something in which he does not believe is not going to do it very efficiently. I believe that, much as we stimulate the workers and do all that we can to see that they give of their best, this job cannot be done one-sidedly. Industrialists and others must put their house in order. That is something which the workers, cannot do. The workers can give some advice on their joint consultative committees but they cannot take physical steps.
Anyone who is interested enough in productivity to read the various reports of the Anglo-American Productivity Council will have seen that there is one startling thing running through all of them. In all of them it is clear that there is a greater output per man in American than in comparable British industries; but the thing that stands out a mile in all those reports is that it is not just machines that make the difference; it is new techniques and, in many cases, more efficient management.
I believe that the full order books of industry in the last seven years have not been a particularly good thing for industry. There has not been the stimulation to organise and to cut prices and to see how better techniques can be used. I admit that a good deal has been done in industry, but I think that it is not enough for a great country like ours, which has so many of its people engaged in industry. Employers must be prepared to adopt new techniques and new methods, and they must do so in close consultation with their workers.
Before anything can be gained from a survey of American methods—in which consultation between workers and employers is very effective indeed—there are three things which the Government must do. The Government must increase the export trade; they must meet the defence programme and, at the same time, they must maintain a high level of essential goods for the civilian market. This means that there has to be a great change and a transfer of labour from the civil industry to the defence industry.
What we on this side of the Committee would like to know is how the

change-over, which is said to be taking place now, is to be effected. The right hon. and learned Gentleman may be able to tell us exactly how he proposes to make this very great change—because it is an enormous change. It is because I see no real effort being made at the moment-—for which the right hon. and learned Gentleman is not solely responsible—that I believe that unemployment will rise to the figure I have indicated.
There is an Order called the Notification of Vacancies Order. However carefully one examines that Order, it is clear that it does absolutely nothing except say to an employer "If you want some men you must go to the employment exchange and let them know how many men you want. You are prevented from engaging people directly and through advertising." But that does nothing at all. The mere fact that an employer goes to an employment exchange and says, "I want 250 skilled engineers," means nothing. The exchange either supplies 250 skilled engineers, or it has not got them and it does not supply them.
I do not believe that the right hon. and learned Gentleman is relying on the Notification of Vacancies Order at all. He must have the Order—and incidentally, I agree with the Order—because he must find out the requirements of industry, and he must channel those requirements and make sure that skilled engineers, who are desperately scarce, go into the right places, if he is to meet the programme laid out by the Ministry of Supply and the Board of Trade.
What is he going to do? I understand that he contemplates having a manpower inspectorate. How is that to work? Is the manpower inspectorate to go to a factory, when they ask for 250 engineers, thoroughly examine what is being done, and say, for instance, "You need only 20"? What is to happen in those firms which are concealing under-employment in anticipation of orders which the Ministry of Supply has not yet given but which the firms know are coming in due course?
With skilled engineers being so scarce, I can understand an industrialist not wanting to get rid of 200 or 300 engineers when he has a slight recession and when he knows that some day, when the Minister of Supply has time to think about it and


to consult his relatives and others whom he consults about these things, the orders will be placed. I can understand such industrialists keeping men who are not fully employed.
What is the right hon. and learned Gentleman going to do about this? Is the manpower inspectorate to go into any factory, when a request is made for men, and to say, "You do not need all these people; this is your requirement"? Does the Minister intend to take powers to put the manpower inspectorate into factories so that they can say, "It is quite clear, on the class of goods you are making, that you are not fully and positively employing all these people and you ought to have 30 people fewer in this industry or in this factory"? Alternatively, does he intend them to say, "Because you have 30 or 40 people under-employed, we must place orders with your factory and improve your use of manpower"? The latter is the correct policy, because we must make as few changes as possible among workers and their places of employment if we are to avoid confusion.
We want to know from the right hon. and learned Gentleman just what he intends to do administratively. What will be his instructions to his officers at the employment exchanges? How will he transfer these people from one kind of work into another factory or into an entirely different kind of work? What arrangements does he intend to make with the trade unions for dilution? What arrangements does he intend to make for training at Government centres, which are admirable institutions?
These are questions to which I and my hon. Friends want answers; and I am certain that there are many more questions to which my hon. Friends want answers. Indeed, I am sure that the right hon. and learned Gentleman will be glad to give us those answers, because it is important that his policy as Minister of Labour should be clearly shown to be a policy which is sound and good, and one which the T.U.C. and we on this side of the Committee can support—because we are anxious about this matter.
Finally, it is no use carrying on a great campaign for greater production in the factories if orders drop off. There is nothing good about having a factory

working overtime for several weeks on some export orders and, at the end of that time, for the export orders to cease and the factory to go on short time. That leads to chaos in industry and disturbs the rhythm and harmony of the workers in those factories.
This means, therefore, that those who are engaged in the export trade must forget about the full order books which they have had for so long and must go out and get some more orders. I do not believe it is beyond the capacity of British industry, if it really sets itself to the task, to go out and get the orders for Britain. After all, we are making as good a class of goods as any other country in the world and we have as fine a class of workers, technicians and draughtsmen as any other country in the world.
What we have to study, particularly where we are breaking into the American market, is their methods. They want better packing and better deliveries; they want the goods to be suited to the particular requirements of the people in any State or any part of a State. That means studying requirements, and unless we study thoroughly the market into which we want to put our goods, we shall fail utterly and completely.
There are two things, I suppose, which would lead us out of the economic situation in which we find ourselves—first, if we had 35 million tons of coal for export, and secondly, if we had one half of 1 per cent. of the American home market. That would revolutionise the whole economic outlook of the country. How are we doing about coal? In 1946 the total production was 181 million tons. In 1951, under a policy of co-ordination and nationalisation, it had risen to 211 million tons. I want here to read a paragraph from a Bulletin which was given to me as I came to the Committee. It says:
Mining, in fact, was the only major industry where production rose more rapidly than a year earlier. The acceleration was, however, slight, and the improvement does not seem to be continuing into 1952.
I want to remind hon. Members opposite that at this time last year the then Prime Minister, the present Leader of the Opposition, sent a personal appeal to every miner in the country. The result was an increase of 3¼ million tons of coal. I regret to have to say that there is no


right hon. Gentleman on the other side of the Committee who could send such an appeal and get any response at all. But they need not worry; we will do it for them. The fact is that there is nothing to be gained from an appeal of that kind from the Government, and it means that what the Government will have to do is revise their programme of cuts and, if they want to show the miners that they mean business, see that the miners get some decent houses to live in.
The building of extra houses for miners must go on and must be increased. The Government must clean up some of the appalling mining villages in the country. They must see to it that there are very much better amenities in those villages and they must proceed even more rapidly with the pithead bath programme. Indeed, the building programme for the entire mining industry must not be cut by a penny—it must be increased. If that is not done. I doubt very much whether we can get within sight of 35 million tons of coal for export.

Mr. Raymond Gower: While it is very encouraging to have this assurance of support in so many spheres, would not the right hon. Gentleman agree that hon. Members on the Opposition benches have rendered a positive disservice by suggesting in the country that many of these essential economies are quite unessential?

Mr. Robens: That is the marked difference of opinion between us. We believe that many of them are unessential. That is something in which we believe. The strange thing is that hon. Members opposite are annoyed if we doubt their integrity and honesty of purpose in these matters, but if we hold firm opinions and express them they say we are doing a disservice. The fact is that we do not believe the cuts which they have proposed will bring about what is required—and that is what we are discussing today. The Government should stop the cuts in building in the mining areas. Here is an opportunity to show the miners that the Government intend to treat them fairly, to encourage a greater increase of manpower in the pits and to get us into a position in which we shall have more coal to export.
Now, on the question of one half of 1 per cent. of the American home market—

Mr. Malcolm McCorquodale: May I say—and this is not a party point—that I believe it would be of value to the country if the right hon. Gentleman, who has considerable influence in these matters, would urge the miners to think again about the Italian workers?

Mr. Robens: No one regrets the position about the Italian miners more than I do, and I realise, perhaps more than anybody, how delicate the situation is. I spent much time on this very problem when I was at the Ministry of Fuel and Power, and when I became Minister of Labour I spent a lot of time on it—not only in this country, but for four weeks in Italy—trying to get the whole matter straightened out and to get more Italians here. It is grievous to me to see my work undone and thrown away by a silly and irresponsible remark made by an hon. Member opposite. That was a foolish thing, an utterly foolish thing.
If only hon. Gentlemen opposite would go into the mining villages on a Saturday night, and go into the "pubs" and have a pint of beer with the chaps, they would learn what the miners feel about these things, and they would be much more careful about making irresponsible remarks of that sort. I regret that more than anything else. I hope and think that many of my hon. Friends will try to bring about a change in the situation, because we need that manpower, and we ought to have Italians in our pits.
If I may add one more word about this, it is that the miners have always been a wonderful group in internationalism. We know that there are in Italy hundreds of thousands of decent young Italians who are out of work and who have no prospect of work, and they would be doing a great international service if they were to come over here to do the work that is waiting for them now in our British pits.
I was saying that the second point was that we must have this drive into the American market. I should like to compliment those who are responsible for the compilation of the Board of Trade Journal, because they have some interesting things to say about these matters in the issues for 16th February and 23rd February. They have some very important things to say. After all, goods are not bought in the United States; they are sold. There is a world of


difference. There is something like 15,000 million dollars worth of Government and local authority buying in the States, and we barely touch it. There is a survey here that was made for the Board of Trade by Americans in America and it states:
The typical reaction"—
of the American purchaser—
was: 'Let them come here and try to sell me goods; if the goods and the price are right I will certainly buy them. The trouble is I never see a salesman of foreign goods'.
When the British salesman does go he
… too often adopted an apologetic and almost defeatist attitude amounting to: 'I'm sure you wouldn't want these goods, and aren't able to buy them, so it is hardly worth my while showing them to you'.
If I had said that, I should have been accused of being partisan and controversial, but that is in this Board of Trade publication; and I believe it is true.
We have not really fought to get into this market properly. A good deal of research has got to be done into the needs of this market. We must overcome one thing that has militated against the real development of these exports—the resistance of industrialists to the Export Council which we wanted to set up when we were in power. The workers cannot influence orders. That is the job of management. If the managements go out to get these orders, productivity will increase.

Mr. A. Edward Davies: Does that paper which my right hon. Friend has just quoted say anything about the tariff walls set up against many of our products?

Mr. Robens: Of course it does, but we are only talking about one half of 1 per cent. of the American home market. What happens? I am not an expert in these these matters, but I have had some experience. If we concentrate on a certain line in the American market until it hits the American producer, there will be a tariff and a high one. If we spread our drive over various commodities, over a whole range of the American market, so that the American producers do not feel it, the tariff will not be so high. We can do this if we get down to the job; and we can get into the American market to the extent that we need.
To sum up, I would say this. I believe that full employment is essential if we are to get increased productivity. I believe control and planning of raw materials also to be essential, and I believe that there must be more intensified efforts on the selling side, especially in the dollar areas. We shall help all we can, but it is the responsibility of the Government to create the kind of atmosphere in which British industry and British workers can get down to the job of bringing Britain right back on top.

4.15 p.m.

The Minister of Labour (Sir Walter Monckton): I shall at least attempt to follow the right hon. Gentleman in the brevity of his observations, so that others may have the opportunity of taking up the time that remains, but I thought that it would be wise to intervene now in order that they might have a considered view to discuss when they address the Committee.
The first thing the right hon. Gentleman claimed for his speech was that it was intended to be non-controversial; and although from time to time—he will forgive me for saying—he appeared to deviate in unessential considerations, on the main theme he assisted by showing a readiness to help in the difficulties with which not we alone, but all of us, are faced.
I did particularly value his intervention in respect of the possibility of encouraging the miners to have Italian workers here—Italian workers who, as he said, are short of employment in hundreds of thousands in their own country and whom, I am sure, many here would like to assist in the spirit of unity which has been one of the most marked and admirable characteristics of the Labour movement.

Mr. William Blyton: Would it not be a good gesture for a responsible person on the Government Front Bench to apologise on behalf of the Conservative Member who made that derogatory remark lately?

Sir W. Monckton: I think I have dealt with the matter of encouraging the right hon. Gentleman in his appeal. I do not want to be diverted to what, I hope, will be regarded as a small affair beside the future of the Italian workers and the


future of British production, and I trust that the appeal which the right hon. Gentleman said he would make will certainly go forward.
The other thing for which I am grateful is what he said about the problem of productivity—that nothing but hard work and increased productivity would get us out of our troubles. He also said that much depended on the atmosphere which is created for this purpose. I think the right hon. Gentleman will do me the justice to say that I have tried during the short time I have held my present office to encourage that atmosphere, in which I recognise at once the assistance which he said I had had, and which I have had, from responsible leaders of the trade unions in presenting a united front on important issues.
He also did me the justice to say he was sure that I was in favour of a policy of full employment. I am certainly the last person to say that the only spur to further effort is fear of unemployment. I want to see a high and stable level of employment; that is my aim, and within that policy to achieve the other objects which we are going to discuss.
The right hon. Gentleman said that he thought the trend in unemployment alarming and that it might reach a figure of a million during this year. What I want to do for a moment or two is to consider the background of the employment situation; not so much to make forecasts, which are necessarily uncertain things; but to show the facts against which we have to judge our policy. There is a general pattern which one can see in this matter over the years after the war.
One can leave out 1946, perhaps, because the figure was distorted by demobilisation, and one can leave out 1947 because of similar distortion owing to the fuel crisis, but when one looks from 1948 onwards the normal pattern has been one in which unemployment has reached its lowest in July; its highest in winter; and then has fallen gradually in the spring to the lower summer figure again. Over these years the increase in unemployed between July and January was of the order of an average of 119,000, and the drop between January and July one of 107,000, because the level of civilian employment was going up over the years. Last year, that is, at July,

1951, unemployment was lower than at any time since the war, but already some adverse tendencies had begun to show themselves. There was falling employment in some consumer goods industries by the early summer of 1951.
Since that lowest figure of July, 1951, there has been an increase in unemployed of 193,000—these are from published figures—and there has also been some easing of the pressure on demand for labour, as shown by the vacancies notified to local offices of the Ministry, which dropped by some 220,000 in that period.
In part this increase in unemployment, higher than the years before, no doubt reflects the slowing down of the rate of increase of production, to which the right hon. Gentleman referred. But I think it must also be looked at against the background of the increasing number of persons in civilian employment, to which he was also good enough to refer. In December, 1951, there were 500,000 more persons in civilian employment than in December, 1948—and more than 100,000 more than in the previous year, 1950. Therefore, although there is this increasing figure of unemployment from July to December, those other considerations must be borne in mind to get a fair result.

Mr. Sydney Silverman: Could the right hon. and learned Gentleman say what the picture looks like if the same analysis and comparison is made for, say, the textile trade in Lancashire?

Sir W. Monckton: I intended to deal with that, because, if I may say so, I quite appreciate that we cannot deal in these broad figures without looking a bit nearer. The first thing I should like to do is to consider the trends in respect of men and women, which the hon. Gentleman will realise very closely affect the point he has just put to me. In January, 1952, men registered as unemployed numbered 216,000, which is the lowest figure by about 16,000 for any January since 1946. The number of women registered as unemployed was 162,000, which is higher than any January since the war, the figures in two preceding years being 103,000 and 107,000 respectively. That very consideration, therefore, drives me to look at the various industries concerned to see how they have moved within the


general pattern, which by itself might be misleading.
Of the 193,000 increase in unemployed between July and January last, 122,000 are accounted for by five groups, and three of those five—building, distribution, and miscellaneous services, including catering, and so forth—are subject to seasonal rises over that period. The important figure, the Committee may think, is that 59,000 of that increase was the result of rising unemployment in the textile and clothing industries. That, of course, explains the high figure in women's unemployment, because these are traditionally women's trades.
It was the recession in these trades, in the case of textiles in July and in the case of clothing in April of 1951, to which I referred at the outset of my observations. Employment in the textiles and clothing industries had been expanding up to the spring of 1951. As hon. Members will remember, there had been an abnormal increase in sales, both retail and wholesale, in the latter part of 1950 and the early part of 1951, with heavy stocking at the same time. That to some extent affects the present position. The fall of employment in those industries is, of course, by no means confined to this country.

Mr. Tom Brown: I am sorry to interject, but can the right hon. and learned Gentleman explain why, during that period, the Ministry of Supply placed with Italian producers an order for over £250,000 worth of manufactured goods for the Air Force?

Sir W. Monckton: The hon. Gentleman will realise that I should like to have some notice of that particular instance before making a reply.

Mr. Brown: It is on record.

Sir W. Monckton: I should want to see when it was done, by whom, and so forth.
The next matter I wanted to say a word or two about was the engineering group of industries in this general pattern of the national economy. During 1951, employment in the metals, engineering and vehicles industry increased by 118,000. There was anxiety about the shortage of raw materials, and there were difficulties in the period where there was

a substantial change in the types of production; yet unemployment in January was slightly lower in those industries than a year ago, and increased by only 12,000 between July and January. Within it there are the aircraft industry figures, and employment in that group went up from 153,000 to 177,000.

Mr. Frederick Lee: Could the right hon. and learned Gentleman subdivide that figure in engineering to show the position of skilled labour and diluted labour?

Sir W. Monckton: I do not think that I can do that with the figures at present available to me.
In fairness, I should add one other matter when dealing with the unemployment situation, and that is about short-time. Although I cannot produce to the Committee up-to-date figures, preliminary figures of the number of workers affected by short-time in the manufacturing industries in the week ended 26th January have come in, and they would suggest that 216,000 workers were affected by short time, and that the aggregate number of hours lost was 2,800,000. The number of workers thus affected is considerably more than in the previous quarter, in which, to take a week in September, the number of hours lost was nearly 2,000,000.
On the other hand, in order to get the balance clear we must not leave out of consideration the fact that the overtime situation has not much altered. The number of workers on overtime in January was 1,158,000, which was only about 120,000 fewer than in the previous quarter, taking the same week. The aggregate number of hours' overtime which they worked was very nearly 9,000,000, only about 1,000,000 less than the previous figure. There is no doubt. I suppose—I say there is no doubt; one has not yet examined the full position, but it is probable—that the short-time to which I have referred is due in part to what I have said about the textile trade, and in part to the shortage of some raw materials.

Mr. Ellis Smith: Has the Minister got the overtime figures for each industry?

Sir W. Monckton: I have a number of figures, but I am afraid I have not those figures available now.

Mr. I. Mikardo: I am sure the right hon. and learned Gentleman will realise that the increase in short-time working and the drop in overtime which he has quoted are, between them, equivalent to another 75,000 unemployed full-time workers.

Sir W. Monckton: The arithmetical calculation which comes so easily to the hon. Gentleman does not come quite so easily to me. I have no doubt he has made the calculation accurately. I was only pointing out that we cannot perhaps rely too much on precise figures. There is the short-time element to be taken into account. On the other hand, overtime, although it produces the figures I have shown, is really pretty stationary. There is not much difference in that.
I have tried quite shortly to summarise the position about employment and unemployment as it was in the latter part of 1951 and as it was in January, 1952. What emerges is this: The numbers engaged in civil employment in December, 1951, were 500,000 more than in December, 1948, and over 100,000 more than in December, 1950.
Demand is shown in the notified vacancies, which dropped from the peak of last July, but which remain, for men, at the high level of this time last year, whereas, for women, because of the circumstances to which I have drawn attention, they have dropped. Unemployment in January for men, was, in fact, the lowest for the time of year since 1946, whereas for women it was the highest.
If, in order to get a picture of the rest of industry in general, we take away from the total figures which I have given those which relate to the textile and clothing trades, then we find unemployment in mid-January was less than for any other January since the war. I will add this: such indications as there are at present, and they are not yet available for a later date, suggest that the figures of unemployment for February will be somewhat higher than for those of January. So far as I can estimate, that is due to the same factors as the increase in January, the textile trade and the seasonable occupations to which I have drawn attention.

Mr. Harry Wallace: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman give the figures for the furniture industry?

Sir W. Monckton: I am afraid that I have not the figures separately here, but I will take an opportunity of getting them. They are, of course, available from the same source.
I want to say first a word generally about the aim of the Ministry of Labour in such a situation, and then as the right hon. Gentleman invited me to do about the way in which we propose to handle it.

Mr. W. T. Williams: rose—

Sir W. Monckton: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will forgive me if I do not give way too often. First, as to the aim of the Minister of Labour. What has to be done is not entirely within his compass, as the right hon. Gentleman indicated. The provision of opportunities of employment for those who want work—the policy of full employment—is a Government responsibility, and many Ministers must share it, and this bears on economic policy in the broadest sense. My business must be to pay special regard, when these questions of policy are being determined, to the effect of decisions, not only upon the general level of employment, but upon the workers and individual industries and occupations and, indeed, areas.
My responsibility upon which this debate must largely centre is to see to it that the jobs are filled quickly, especially those jobs which are important, in the sense which the right hon. Gentleman mentioned, in the national interest—and to see that, so far as possible, men and women workers are easily and promptly put into the work for which they are qualified or can become qualified when they have the training and experience. It is not easy, as the right hon. Gentleman will appreciate, so short a time before the Budget to discuss comprehensively all the issues which affect the employment position, but there are some about which I should like to say a word.
First, the metal-using industry, The overall size of this industry will be conditioned largely by the amount of steel available—that is obvious. In any case, the development in the national interest of certain types of production and the curtailment of others must account for the movement of labour in and out of individual establishments. In engineering especially, the movement of workers


must be effected by the changes in production which will be brought about by decisions taken to revise the defence programme, to reduce the production of plant, machinery and vehicles for the home market, to limit production of metal-using goods, and, above all, to foster exports.
I cannot give figures which illustrate the size of that operation, some of which will no doubt take place by the switch of production within individual establishments. One big item, however, is a net increase of something like 60,000 required for the aircraft and Royal Ordnance factory programmes. At the moment, we have more than 78,000 outstanding vacancies registered at local offices in the engineering industry, and 32,000 for skilled occupations; and that is showing an upward tendency, although it dropped slightly at the end of the year.
I have dealt with engineering at some length because of its importance. One must not overlook, however, the importance also of an adequate labour supply for the basic industries and services. The coal mines, as we have already seen, need all they can get. On the railways, the outstanding vacancies for men number over 18,000. Agriculture and brickworks, to mention only a few, present problems of labour supply to the Ministry which are equally vital in the national interest.
It is quite plain that there will have to be a considerable movement of workers from one job to another in these industries. The most pressing difficulty of all, which I am sure is present in the minds of many hon. Members, is the shortage of skilled workers. We have to see that the skill that exists is properly used—that every man must have an opportunity to have his capabilities used—and also that skilled labour must be made available, so far as we can make it, and properly distributed.
Then there is the matter to which the right hon. Gentleman referred—the schemes for up-grading and training by individual firms. To that I have given attention, and I have discussed it with the National Joint Advisory Council and, with their agreement, all industries are being asked to introduce where necessary—where they are not there already—schemes of up-grading and training

This is not, as the right hon. Gentleman knows, an easy thing to arrange, nor, in most cases, can such schemes be undertaken without careful investigation inside the industry, but I am encouraged to expect an effective response to the appeal I have made, with the agreement of the National Joint Advisory Council.
Apart from the problem of skilled workers, for the reasons I have already given, the re-deployment of other workers will be necessary on a considerable scale. That is the reason why, with the agreement, again, of the National Joint Advisory Council, the Notification of Vacancies Order was made and came into force on 25th February.
The main purpose of the Order is to bring workers seeking new employment to the exchanges in order that they may be told what are the most important vacancies available, suited to their skill and experience. It was timed to start about the time that redundancies were expected because of steel allocations which might affect employment, in order that there might be a better chance of discouraging workers who became redundant from passing into less important work. The right hon. Gentleman, in his speech, said he agreed with the Order and, therefore, I need not spend much time in debating it. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] No doubt disagreement will be expressed later and can be dealt with later. I only want to deal with the observations of the right hon. Gentleman that I have so far heard.
In so far as there is anxiety, I can only say that we have the experience of the Control of Engagement Order during the war, and the figures which I have got show that when that Order ceased to be effective in October, 1950, there was a drop in the number of vacancies filled through the employment exchanges of something like 30,000 a week. In amplification of that, placings today are of the order of 50,000 a week. In 1949, during the currency of the Control of Engagement Order, the weekly average was about 80,000.
There is another cross-check which indicates that there will be an ample field of workers whom the employment exchanges can seek to persuade to go to work of national importance either for export or for defence purposes. I say


"persuade" because it will be appreciated that the essence of the Order is to persuade and not to direct. No doubt for that reason all the interested parties on the National Joint Advisory Council were ready to agree to it.

Mr. E. Fernyhough: The right hon. and learned Gentleman has said that the inference is that the men will be free and will not be directed. Can he assure us that a man who does not feel disposed to be persuaded will not lose his benefit in consequence of that?

Sir W. Monckton: If the man refuses to be persuaded, he will be entitled to go to a job to which we were not encouraging him to go. That is the essence of it. If it were otherwise, there would be direction.

Mr. Ness Edwards: Can the right hon. and learned Gentleman quote the Order to that effect?

Sir W. Monckton: I do not know that I can quote the Order to that effect, but anyone who looks at it will see that it does not take power to direct a worker to a certain job.
In his comments on the Notification of Vacancies Order, the right hon. Gentleman said that he thought it would be virtually useless unless it was supported by a labour supply inspectorate. I do not agree. I take the view that the opportunity of persuasion is a very important thing, and that if we have this vast number of people coming through the Exchanges and they are told where suitable jobs exist, a great number of them will be ready to go to those jobs.
It will also be appreciated that the matter of the labour supply inspectorate was also the subject of considerable discussion and eventual agreement. What is intended is that inspectors who have some technical and other experience, many of them wartime experience, would go to factories from which requests for further men were made, and discuss with the management whether those persons ought to be supplied or whether, by a reorganisation of the workers already there or some upgradings, fewer or no new recruits would be required.
That is the purpose of it, and it is based upon experience. The right hon. Gentleman will know whether I am right

or wrong in saying that when the inspectorate worked in the war there were a number of cases in which great satisfaction at the suggestions which were made was expressed by the factories to which the inspectors went.

Mr. George Porter: As I was a labour supply inspector during the war, may I put a question to the right hon. and learned Gentleman? Does he not agree that the most important thing for a labour supply inspector is, not to determine whether the number of men requested is required in the factory, but to know to which other factory or section of industry he can go to find the type of workers that he wants? It is no good for the employers to schedule the vacancies or the inspector to determine the need to fill the vacancies unless the machinery creates the possibility of finding the men with the right skill to fill the vacancies.

Sir W. Monckton: The machinery available for this purpose during the war was the same machinery as that which, with the consent of industry, I am proposing to set up again. I hope hon. Members will forgive me if I come quickly towards the close of the first series of observations that I have been able to make from this Dispatch Box and if I do not give way too often.
The right hon. Gentleman referred, in the course of his speech, to the necessity for joint consultation. There is nothing between us on that score. I have relied upon it at the national level and the Ministry relies upon it at the regional level, and what I am doing now is to encourage it in all the industries where I can, and, so far, both sides of industry have supported me in that.
The right hon. Gentleman said that there was no way out of our economic difficulties except hard work. I agree, and I would add that it should be hard work intelligently applied and done with a will. Nothing is more calculated to encourage the intelligence and the will than reliable channels of communication from management to the shop floor and back again. What I can do to stimulate that I will do.
All men of good will at this moment are united in the determination to regain our national prosperity. The most effective use of manpower, which we are


discussing today, can make a great contribution towards this end. What could defeat our purpose would be the reckless use of industrial weapons for political purposes. Therefore, I welcome the resolute speeches of the right hon. Gentleman and some of his colleagues and of responsible leaders of trade unions, which have condemned such courses, which are, are they not, the very negation of democracy?

4.46 p.m.

Mr. Ellis Smith: I want to make a few observations about the Notification of Vacancies Order. The Minister was apt to skip over this, but those of us who have had past experience of this kind of Order are bound to feel concerned about it. We have had similar assurances on previous Orders, and we remember how they were administered.
I am pleased that the right hon. and learned Gentleman has repeated the Chancellor's statement that there is no intention of attempting to compel workers to take jobs they are unwilling to take. That is good as far as it goes, but I want to ask a few questions about this and I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will give definite replies to them.
One of the main principles which guided the Beveridge Committee in coming to its decisions, upon which basis legislation was introduced, was that everyone who paid insurance should be entitled to benefit on the basis of his or her insurance record and that it should be no longer looked upon as a lottery, as it had been in the past in Britain.
If that is still the position—and it is, because no changes have been carried through the House—can we have an assurance that in no circumstances is it intended to introduce any new basis for the administration of the National Insurance Acts or to introduce any new ideas about the eligibility for benefit of any applicant? May we have a definite and unequivocal answer to that question?
I want to ask a few other questions based upon a letter which I have received from a member of the General Council of the Trades Union Congress who is also a member of the National Advisory Council and the general secretary of a trade union. He states that he and his

members are uneasy about the Order. He then refers to a concrete case in which the Coventry employers last September took action to prevent highly skilled engineers from moving from one establishment to another and from one area to another.
It was not until the skilled men refused to carry on with their employment that the order was withdrawn. To the credit of the Coventry and district engineering employers' organisation, when their attention was drawn to it they also assisted in asking the employers not to insist on carrying out the order.
It is possible for that kind of thing to be done under the administration of the new Order. I agree that, on the face of it, there is nothing in the Order except what the Minister has said, but we know from long experience that it is its administration about which we need to be concerned.
I shall produce concrete evidence later on to show that the skilled engineers have had a raw deal in this country during the past 37 years. Whenever the nation has been in difficulties and whenever anyone has been asked to work harder and faster, it has always, apart from the miners, been the skilled engineers who have been asked to do so. [Interruption.] Does any hon. Member doubt that?

Mr. Osborne: The farm workers were asked to work all through the night to grow the food that the engineers and the miners ate.

Mr. Smith: We will leave it to the workers themselves to decide that. I am speaking from my own experience, and I am familiar with the workers generally. The hon. Gentleman ought to remember those who worked night and day at the time of Dunkirk. That is only one example, and I am the first to give credit where it is due.
The general secretary to whom I have referred says that if the Order is administered as it was by the Coventry employers it might prevent men from moving from one place to another. During the past 10 years, a great deal has been said about the need for incentive schemes, such as piece-work and payment by results, yet that has been the position in the engineering industry


during the whole of my life. The difficulties have not, in the main, been with the men and women but with the employers.
If men are of the opinion that adequate incentive is not being paid in their factory, will they be prevented by the Order from moving to another factory? Can the Order be stretched to prevent them? What action will the Minister take to deal with this problem? It is nearly always a matter of the engineering industry. There are two industries in particular that need reinforcement, but where are those reinforcements to be found?
I want to draw the Minister's attention to the approximate numbers employed in various walks of life. In the food, drink and tobacco industries, there are 841,000; in paper and printing, 527,000; in distribution, 2,188,000; in insurance and finance, 441,000; in national and local government, 1,406,000; and in professional services, 1,492,000. I have moved about among these people and have compared their contributions to those being made in the average productive industry, as well as the hours worked and salaries received. I have compared them with those workers who are always called upon to rally to the country when it is in difficulties. I can produce evidence to show the variation in treatment meted out to these various sections between the two wars. Now, for the fifth time in my life, the engineering industry is being asked to make sacrifices.
I have given the figures for certain industries. Where are the others? The population of our country is now approximately 50 million. Engaged in services or employment of some kind are approximately 23 million. Out of these, 9 million are engaged in the manufacturing industries. Has not the time arrived when, instead of calling only upon one section to make sacrifices, some survey should be made of the difference between the 9 million and the 50 million, or between the 9 million and the 23 million? In the main, it has always been the manual workers who have been asked to work harder, to give up their holiday time, to work overtime and to work at weekends, when the country has been in serious economic difficulties. It is always they who have their conditions worsened and their wages reduced.
In addition to all that, there is an enormous growth of unproductive labour,

especially of unproductive professions. People engaged in productive industry are becoming more and more concerned about this fact, particularly miners, engineers, cotton workers and pottery workers. It is they who need the reinforcement. No one can point a finger at the engineering industry for the contribution it has made to our country's difficulties during the past 15 years. The Confederation of Shipbuilding and Engineering Unions has made repeated proposals for a plan for the engineering and allied industries. Had those proposals been put into effect, the country would be in a far stronger position for dealing with our urgent needs.
In my innocence I made proposals for a British economic plan. I suggested on paper machinery for carrying it out. We are put to the test by what we do in regard to all our economic talk. I thought that we meant business, and I put suggestions on paper, which can be checked, for an overall economic plan to enable us, in the national interests, to get the best results from our resources and efforts. Little did I realise what one has to contend with in putting forward this kind of thing.
Students of economics are now forced to admit that Britain is in a serious economic position, while superimposed upon that position is our large expenditure on rearmament. We are also bound to admit that during the past six years the achievements of our country have been simply remarkable, when we consider the historical background of the past 50 years. For six years there has been the maximum good will from those engaged in industry, and it has reflected itself in increased productivity and output. If the country is to obtain the best results from the efforts of its workpeople, it needs to -maintain that good will. The present Government must be on their guard in respect of that matter.
Great efforts are being made in industry, but comparatively little effort outside industry. Industry is timed to seconds and works by stop watches and micro-motion study. There are new methods of production of all kinds and new methods of organisation. All this represents enormous progress but, politically and administratively, are we making the same progress in order to keep pace with the progress made inside industry? Outside industry we refuse to


make the same effort or to plan for the desired results and to do justice to the superhuman efforts being made inside industry to utilise our resources in the national interest.
The Minister rightly stressed the importance of the engineering industry. Today we are beginning to re-equip our Armed Forces. It is fashionable to interpret that as defence. We must also make great efforts for our export trade and at the same time there must be a large expenditure on capital investment at home and abroad. A modernisation programme needs to be carried out and, in addition to all that, domestic appliances are required. Therefore, our attention should be drawn to the opinion of the United Nations in a publication entitled "A General Survey of the European Engineering Industry," from which the following extract is taken:
The importance of the European engineering industry derives from two factors: the scale on which it employs manpower and other factors of production, and its function in the economic development of European and overseas countries. Its products are used in literally every sphere of economic activity …. Indeed, the industry is of especial importance at a time like the present when so much effort is being devoted throughout the world to intensive development of industrial and agricultural production and to the raising of productivity.
The "Economic Survey" of 1951 stated:
One of the most difficult problems facing industry as a whole is likely to be in finding the highly skilled workpeople who will be urgently needed to prepare the production lines.
In my view, instead of reading like that, the Survey should have read as follows: highly skilled engineers will be urgently required to prepare the patterns, tools, jigs, and templates so that for the fourth time in our life thousands of others can earn more than the skilled engineers who have prepared those production lines, and so that those in the professions may retain their relatively high standard of living, and so that others can have the cars which the engineers manufacture but which they cannot afford to buy.
I am speaking like this intentionally because in this country the relative position of highly skilled engineers has been worsening over the last 37 years. This is not a political matter because a certain amount of responsibility for this

rests upon all of us. If anyone doubts that, I have the figures here for various branches of the industry but I propose to give only a few.
During 1950 the percentage increase over 1914 in the weekly wages for local authorities' general workers was 400, for engineering general workers it was 440, in all industries it was 350, and for the engineering skilled fitters it was 310. The differential wage for the skilled engineers over the general workers in Great Britain is 16 per cent., in the United States of America 55 per cent. and in Russia 80 per cent.
One can understand the amount of uneasiness amongst highly skilled engineers. I remember as a mere boy what took place in the First World War prior to my going into the Army and I shall never forget how the engineers were treated. Our wages never caught up with the increased cost of living. We made great sacrifices in agreeing to dilution and all kinds of changes and then were looked upon as guilty men. We belonged to the so-called unsheltered trades, and between 1920 and 1923 we suffered a reduction in wages of 38½ per cent. In the sheltered trades the reduction was between 12 per cent. and 23 per cent., while the salaries of lawyers, town clerks and professional people in general remained the same.
Hon. Members who were in this House in 1937 will remember how the engineering industry entered wholeheartedly into the re-armament of our country because we felt that all that was best in life was at stake. Now for the fifth time in the lifetime of many of us we are called upon to work night and day. I have in my hand a letter from the Ministry of Labour dated 17th February, 1951. In it are figures, produced by the Ministry itself, confirming everything I have said with regard to the treatment of the highly skilled engineer.
In order that there shall be no doubt of the men to whom I am referring, let me say at once that I am speaking of those who have served an apprenticeship. Does anyone doubt the necessity for an apprenticeship in these days? If that is the case in some quarters, then I say it is an indication that they are not familiar with the working of the industry. In the engineering industry the need for training is greater than ever before. Today men are carefully selected when they reach the age of 16. They must have a general


and specialised knowledge, an understanding of drawings, a knowledge of geometry and mathematics gained from attendance at day and evening school. Later on they must learn to use tools. They must be able to concentrate, to take a pride in their work, to use ingenuity, to be adaptable, to be efficient, to work hard and speedily.
In the view of many of us, it is time that the Ministry of Labour took more direct action. The policy of the Ministry has been to hold the ring. As long as everything is going along, the Ministry does not step in. That negative policy is not good enough. If the workers act, the Ministry steps in quickly, but the idea is to get them back to work and then to leave them. If anyone doubts that, let me quote from Command Paper 7511 which was published in August, 1948. It is the report of an inquiry into a dispute in the engineering industry. We find on page 13:
We recommend that the parties should again re-open negotiations regarding this matter.
In paragraph 43 we find:
We are convinced that the wage system in the industry is in need of revision and simplification, and we believe that, with good will and patience on both sides, it should be possible to improve it materially.
Then in paragraph 44 there are these words:
We have some sympathy with the claim that there should be greater uniformity of minimum rates of wages in the industry …. We feel that there is no justification for such wide differences for men engaged in the same occupations.
We had recommendation after recommendation approximately three years ago, and the Minister has taken no further action to get both parties together.
I hope, therefore, that as a result of this debate the Minister will consider what has been said and thereafter take more positive action, in order that these recommendations can be acted upon, and that he will use his influence to ensure that the highly skilled engineers get justice now that they are again being called upon to make further sacrifices.

5.10 p.m.

Mr. J. K. Vaughan-Morgan: We all welcome the subject of the debate as a constructive effort on the part of both sides of the Committee to make a contribution to what is still the big problem of the nation today. It is a pleasant

alternative to the rather pinpricking type of political and partisan debate which we might have had.
The right hon. Member for Blyth (Mr. Robens) began his speech magnificently, with a great constructive contribution. I only regret—my hon. Friend the Member for Solihull (Mr. M. Lindsay) drew attention to it—his rather gloomy and Cassandra-like observation that he thought there would be one million unemployed by the end of the year. I hope that whoever replies for the Government will deal, as my right hon. and learned Friend the Minister has already dealt, with that point, and alleviate some of the anxieties which may be felt.
When the right hon. Member for Blyth made that utterance, I was reminded of a memory of my youth, when I came as a visitor to the House and sat under the Gallery. At Question time, the then Minister of Labour, in answer to a Question, announced a great and sensational decline for that month in unemployment figures. There were loud cheers from the Government benches, but none from the Opposition side. I have not forgotten that.
I should like to refer now to the speech of my right hon. and learned Friend. I regret only one omission, which I hope to make good. He made no reference to the committee, which he has recently appointed, to deal with the continuance in employment of old people. That committee, which the Minister announced in reply to a Question by my right hon. Friend the Member for Epsom (Mr. McCorquodale), was welcomed very much on both sides of the House. In particular, we welcome the appointment of the chairman. My right hon. and learned Friend could not have found a better chairman than his Parliamentary Secretary, who brings not only great experience from industry but, as is known by those of us who have listened to debates on the subject for the last two years, knowledge and great sympathy also.
I am sorry that we were not told at the time—nor have we been told since—what are to be the terms of reference of the committee. Is it to be another working party, study group or Royal Commission, to find out why older people are not more fully employed, why unemployment exists in those categories and why there is


so much prejudice against their employment? If so, I shall be sorry, because a vast mass of information on the subject is already available.
There has been the report of the Nuffield Trustees. On the scientific and medical side, there has been the work of Sir Frederick Bartlett, at Cambridge, of which many hon. Members may know. There has been recently a report by the Industrial Welfare Society, and there have been countless debates in the House. But I was hoping that the committee would have more of a long-term objective; that its terms of reference would be, as it were, to act as a standing committee to find opportunities in the future, and not just to find out why nothing has happened in the past.
I should like to know whether that committee is to be comparable with the Ince Committee or is to be the parallel for the old people of the Central Youth Employment Committee. The Ince Committee did magnificent work in an uncharted field. But information on this problem already exists, and therefore I hope that the duty of the committee will be to find out, not why, but how, and to find practical opportunities for employing older people.
There is in this matter a hiatus between Parliament and the people. We have had many debates on the subject and many constructive suggestions, but somehow they never seem to be translated into action. The work that is done in this field seems to lack something. We make pious observations. The last Minister, in answer to a Question—the first that I asked in the House—said that he had referred the matter to the National Joint Advisory Committee. But nothing ever seems to come from it, and I am hoping that with the new committee we shall really get something done.
By and large, leaving out certain short-term trends that may exist for the moment, the need for the continued employment of older people is not appreciated in the country as a whole, either by the workers or by the employers. There is still an abiding prejudice against their continuance in employment, and far too little has been done. What is needed is an entirely fresh and new impetus from above.
Let me give an example of my meaning. Last year, the House passed the new National Insurance Act, one of the Sections of which was designed to allow those who had retired to come back into employment in order to earn the new increments to their retirement pensions. During the consideration of the Bill, a Clause was introduced by the right hon. Lady the Member for Fulham, West (Dr. Summerskill), and it was hoped that as a result, in order to meet the needs of re-armament, a large extra force would be brought back into the labour field.
But I asked a Question the other day of the Minister of National Insurance as to what the effect of that provision had been. It appears from the reply that during the six months some 2,500 men and 240 women have opted to return from retirement into employment. In other words, that Section of the Act has been a complete failure.
There is, I think, a reason for this, Although the Section was included in the Act, there was, apparently, a lack of liaison between the Ministry of National Insurance and the Ministry of Labour. As far as I can see, nothing was done. No instructions were issued to the employment exchanges to find the opportunities of employment for these extra people who should be returning to employment. I hope that I am wrong, but I trust that that sort of failure to co-ordinate the activities of the two Ministries will not happen in future.
In the Notification of Vacancies Order, my right hon. and learned Friend has a most valuable weapon of persuasion to overcome the prejudices to which I have referred. The Order is welcomed by the right hon. Member for Blyth, although on the Opposition benches there seem to be the usual slight divisions of opinion about it. The Order certainly can be welcomed, because with his labour inspectorate the Minister will have an opportunity to break down the prejudice. It is their duty to do so, and when employers come to ask them for labour I hope they will put the question: "What are you doing to make conditions right for those of your workers who wish to remain with you?" Only when the answer is satisfactory should they get the extra labour for which they are asking.
In the long term, the ageing trend of the nation is a very important problem. We


all know and have read about the ageing of the population, but we must get down to the matter and decide how we are to meet the enormous burden on our standard of living that this ageing population will represent. It is one of the biggest factors which will affect 'our economic life for the rest of this century. If this committee can make a contribution towards that and towards removing the hardship that exists among many older workers, I think my right hon. and learned Friend will have done a great deal of good.

5.20 p.m.

Mr. Charles Pannell: We have listened to an interesting speech from the hon. Member for Reigate (Mr. Vaughan-Morgan). It was a pity that it was marred by an anecdote from the past, when he referred to an occasion in the inter-war years when he came to the House and, I presume, sat in the Strangers' Gallery. He said that when it was notified from the Government side of the House that there had been a spectacular drop in the figures of unemployment, it evoked a cheer from the Government benches but was received in silence on these benches.
During the period of the last Government I was in the House, not in the Strangers' Gallery. I can always remember the looks of dumb misery among hon. Members opposite when any good news came through about anything, and that is a fact which may be confirmed by any hon. Member who sat in the House in those years. In many of the employment debates of those earlier times it was noteworthy that the Government benches were empty and Members opposite took very little interest in the subject at all. We also have to remember, when talking of spectacular falls in unemployment, that there were never fewer than 1,700,000 unemployed when hon. Members opposite were in power before the war and that, counting wives and families, meant that something like 6 million were always on the poverty line.
I represent engineering people and am one of them. I will begin by dealing with figures as they affect the Amalgamated Engineering Union, which is celebrating its centenary—it has survived all those years of Toryism. These figures are important, as they represent craftsmen. The union has 837,652 members

and, because we are an international organisation, approximately 750,000 are in Great Britain. In February, which is the latest figure for unemployment, the figure was 1,560, which is a decrease of 231 on the previous month, but that figure masked a considerable amount of under-employment of our members, which is reflected throughout the whole of the industry.
I wish to base my speech mainly on the position of the A.E.U. and to explain why it colours the degree of dilution to be extended to the arms industry. Let us see how the engineering industry is divided. If we take engineering, shipbuilding and electric goods—not vehicles—we find that there are 1,898,000 people employed in that section and there are 22,023 unemployed. In miscellaneous metal goods, screws, forgings and brass goods, there are employed 510,000 and 6,396 unemployed. In vehicles, in which I include trucks, cars, cycles, aircraft and railway loco shops, there are employed 1,031,000 and unemployed 6,617. It is this section which is mainly affected by shortage of steel.
Last year it was assumed that there would be an overall cut of 20 per cent. in steel. That would be of sheet and bar steel allocations. We claim that, through maldistribution in certain sections of industry—and I am asked to speak on behalf of the union—the cut equates to 40 per cent. in the Oxford district in specific cases.
The Minister may remember that last year the overall shortage was estimated to be 1,500,000 tons over the whole industry. The Prime Minister has been to the United States and we are promised one million tons, but that steel will not be available until the end of the year. There is also the importation of 750,000 tons of scrap, which should bring in another 250,000 tons of steel. So there should be only a marginal deficit in the future. In my view, the motorcar industry should attract an increased allocation.
I base these figures on an article which appeared in "Engineering" on 8th February, 1952. I paraphrase that article which says that it may be that shortage of steel will not limit production very considerably. The total deficiency of all grades in 1952 has been estimated at 1.5 million tons, now reduced to 500,000 tons if allowance is made for imports from the United States and the other considera-


tions to which I have referred. It seems to me that in the engineering trade that is the basic cause of our under-employment.
I have had this weighty set of documents sent me to study. They are shop stewards' reports for the whole of my union up and down the country and in shop after shop. These are not theorists but people on' the job, and they say there is a complete damping down of enthusiasm for production and at every step this decision on steel seems to over-cloud the industry. It will not be expected that I should read the whole of these reports, and I have no doubt that the Minister will take my word for it.
I have referred to Oxford, a place I know well because I worked there in the days of the depression when a trade unionist was a rare specimen in that city. They are now working four days a week in the Nuffield Organisation. This is due to shortage of steel. I can remember the time, in 1927—and the Under-Secretary will remember also—when the famous Morris bull-nosed radiators were changed to the fiat-nosed radiator and Lord Nuffield put his employees off for seven weeks enforced vacation without pay because the engineering industry was in such a state that he could pick up men from London and Manchester, or Wherever he wanted.
Those conditions do not apply today, but they colour the memory of a town. Particularly when dealing with the A.E.U. we have to bear in mind the collective memory and traditions, and we have our memories just as hon. Members opposite have memories. Now employers are holding on to labour, and in these conditions, obviously, the chance of negotiating any dilution recedes into the background because engineers, like bricklayers, want to see material in front of them in order to get on with the job.
Bearing in mind all the experiences to which my hon. Friend has referred, I do not think the A.E.U. has preserved a very bitter memory. I am old enough to remember in the last year of my apprenticeship how we were locked out for four months for no other reason than that the employers thought we had no right to any voice on managerial functions. Those were very different days from these, when

we hear of joint consultations. Hon. Members opposite have been converted. They ought to read the debate of, I think, February, 1923, and some of them might see the way their fathers voted in those days. We had the engineers in London reduced to £3 a week and it was not until 1935 that, with re-armament, the trade began to pick up again.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Bevan) mentioned the other day the tremendous loss of men from the mining industry. The hon. Member for Esher (Mr. Robson Brown) and other Members will remember the tremendous loss from the engineering industry. I have previously referred to the fact that if one considered the skilled men who became corporation employees engaged on unskilled work, an engineering shop could have been staffed from such men.
Taking the Oxford district—out of approximately 16,000 workers there are 2,000 working a four-day week at Morris Motors and the Pressed Steel Company. At Abingdon—M.G. and Riley Cars—there are 250 workers on a forty-hour week. A number of workers in Oxford have had notice of dismissal to take effect on Friday this week. The position is considered to be very serious and there is to be a mass meeting in Oxford at the week-end.
There is little alternative employment for engineers in that area. It is not like the Midlands, where there are many towns contiguous to each other in which work might be found. The difficulty seems to be in relation to high tensile and tubular steel. In Oxford, the number of unemployed was 232 in June, 1951, and 411 in January, 1952. In the whole southern area the unemployed in my own union numbered 7,479 in June, 1951, and 13,240 in January, 1952. That is the most spectacular figure I could find, I concede that point to Members opposite, but I am trying to indicate the position in a part of the country—

Mr. S. Silverman: Has my hon. Friend ever heard of Lancashire?

Mr. Pannell: I said specifically at the outset that I was referring to the engineering industry. My hon. Friend no doubt has great knowledge of cotton textiles which I do not share, being a Yorkshire Member of Parliament.
I have always recognised that full employment does not mean one man at one job in one town in one lifetime. But I also put this point to hon. Gentlemen opposite because it was very well brought out by the late Ernest Bevin, who refused to allow matters of labour and manpower control to take second place in the War Cabinet. He believed men and women to be ends in themselves and that we must consider the human problems associated with them.
Men and women are not just objects to serve other people's ends. Therefore, when we consider something that may happen in the future—it may be a war in five years' time, though we hope that one will never happen—we must imagine what is to be done with people in the meantime. People talk glibly about housing and re-housing. My right hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) was always being pressed to put police constables on a priority list. Others would have firemen on a priority list—[An HON. MEMBER: "Dockers."]—and, as my hon. Friend says, dockers. As one who has been a member of the housing committee of a local authority, I say that if all these pleas are acceded to, people such as engineers, who do all the work, will get no priority at all. [Interruption.] My reference was not intended to apply to dockers. I was drawn into mentioning them by an intervention.
When we speak about the armament drive and putting people where they are wanted, we have to consider the social problems associated with that step—families, children's education, etc. As a practical engineer, I know that it is not a matter of shipping people from this to that place but a matter of intelligence and the management of men where they are.
There are other social considerations which arise in an armament drive or from some other cause which entails uprooting people and putting them to work in some new place. That did not work in wartime. People speak objectively where they themselves are not concerned, but we are under a necessity to cherish home and family life. There are great divisions between us but I imagine that we are united on that.
I am reminded of a quotation to the effect that men and women should not be entirely conditioned in their lives by the needs of other men, whether those other

men be soldiers or merchants, capitalists, commissars or kings. It is men and women whom we serve; and while the threat of war or a re-armament drive may be overhanging us, we have to keep in mind their requirements. There is a collective memory, particularly among engineers, who have been badly treated in the past, and we must resolve, on the basis of recognition of those mistakes and wrongs, to go forward to a better organised system of things.

5.37 p.m.

Mr. Malcolm McCorquodale: Out of an unfortunate occurrence has come the good of this short debate, and all of us in the Committee welcome the choice of the Opposition in selecting this subject for discussion. It has already led to a very valuable speech from the right hon. Member for Blythe (Mr. Robens), who was Minister of Labour in the previous Administration. Many of the things he said will be most helpful if taken to heart by everybody in the country.
We had a wholly admirable speech—I his maiden speech at that box—from my right hon. and learned Friend the Minister of Labour. I should like to congratulate him, not only on his speech but very much more, if I may do so without appearing patronising, on the remarkable way in which he has gained the confidence and co-operation of the leading trade union leaders during the short time he has been at his present post. That will be of great value and to the benefit of the country in the difficult days that lie ahead.
In recent years the Ministry of Labour has, and I, for one, have always welcomed it most strongly, kept itself out of partisan party controversies. I am glad to see that that has continued in this debate. For example the hon. Member for Leeds, West (Mr. Pannell), in his closing sentences, expressed a great truth which I believe both sides of the Committee will accept. It is well that we should remind ourselves that in these manpower debates we are dealing with human beings, not cogs in a vast machine.
The hon. Member for Leeds, West spoke mostly about the engineering industry, of which he has first-hand knowledge and on behalf of which he speaks with some authority, and I do not propose


to follow him on that aspect of the question. I thought that at one time he was harping rather far back. There was a great deal about 1923.

Mr. Pannell: I was provoked.

Mr. McCorquodale: What is needed at the moment in the great industry of which he was speaking is more and more steel. That is why we welcome any steel that we can purchase from overseas. Even more valuable would be increased output of steel from our own steel industry.
The right hon. Member for Blyth said that what we needed was hard work, increased productivity and increased exports. I certainly agree with him that what we need is hard and harder work. But to get hard and harder work from us ordinary human beings, we need more incentives—[HON. MEMBERS: "Red meat!"] Yes, red meat if possible; that would be the best incentive of all if we could get it. I should like some more red meat. But we in this House have the privileges of the House canteen which others outside do not have. We need more incentives and I trust that next week the Chancellor of the Exchequer will be able to show the way to granting incentives for increased output and productivity.
What we also need is increased exports. I was glad to hear the right hon. Gentleman emphasise, with very remarkable figures, the gravity of the position in this respect. There has been a considerable amount of discussion about the unemployment figures, both by the right hon. Gentleman and by my right hon. and learned Friend. I think it has been shown that the rise we are now suffering in the unemployment figures, apart from short-time caused by the shortage of steel, is almost entirely in the textile trades.
The problem of the textile trades is twofold. One is that the price of the raw material we have to purchase from abroad has suffered a most violent fluctuation over the last year which has been wholly bad for the industry. Owing to the war in Korea, the stockpiling of great countries and widespread overseas speculation, the price of wool and cotton was forced up to unprecedented heights. Naturally, while that was going on people all over the world rushed to buy at the lower price.

Mr. S. Silverman: The right hon. Gentleman will deceive himself if he thinks that the position of world trade affords any explanation whatever of the slump in Lancashire.

Mr. McCorquodale: Although I am not an expert in the textile industry, I do know something about it and I propose to continue my remarks. I think that the hon. Member is wrong. The cotton and wool industries suffered, first of all, from this stockpiling and from the heavy orders placed by those who saw that the price of raw material was shooting up to these high levels.
A corollary to that has happened. The price of wool has come right down again. It is less than half of what it was only a little time ago, and while it is coming down everybody stands off buying in the hope of being able to purchase later at a lower price. That disruption has upset the woollen industry and the making-up industry.
The same has occurred with regard to the cotton industry, except that the price of Egyptian cotton has not yet begun to come down at anything like the same pace as wool in the woollen industry, although the price of American cotton has been falling. But the price of Egyptian cotton is very weak. It is held up largely by artificial means, and nobody has any confidence that it will stand at its present level.
As a consequence there has been a slump in textiles all over the world. I read in the papers that even in the United States the textile trades are in the doldrums. In Belgium and in Italy and other countries the textile trade is getting into a very difficult position, because of this fluctuation in the raw material price and the result of that on other trades.
But for our purposes at home there is one other factor in the textile trade which we must also take into consideration and that is the resurgence of Japan in the textile trade. That is not a matter for this debate so much as for a debate on the Board of Trade. I was, however, alarmed to read in the papers the other day details of some figures of the increased trade, for example, between Pakistan and Japan, especially in the textile industry. Over the last year or so they seem to have swept the board to the detriment of Lancashire. I suggest


that this is a matter which must have the very closest attention of the Board of Trade.
Subject to that, I think the problem in the textile industry is of a temporary character caused by these price fluctuations, and that we may hope for some improvement as stability returns. Meantime, we hope that the demands of the armament industry, especially on factories in Lancashire, for example, will at any rate mitigate the hardship and difficulties of the great textile trades. I do not therefore think that the gloomy prognostications about a million unemployed, as announced by the right hon. Gentleman, are likely to be fulfilled. I believe that in this respect our problems are largely temporary except upon the resurgence of Japan so far as textiles are concerned and so far as Western Germany is concerned in regard to engineering products.
I should like to refer to the Notification of Vacancies Order and the problem of shifting workers from peace-time to armament industry. I believe that the Minister, advised by both sides in industry, has chosen the right method, that of persuasion. The British people like to be persuaded, but they hate to be ordered about. Everyone will agree that where the Ministry of Labour—accustomed, as they are, to deal with individuals throughout the country—get the opportunity, it is wonderful how effective their persuasion can be. In suggesting to the ordinary man or woman seeking a job, and who is not prejudiced one way or another, they will have to show that it would be good, not only for those concerned, but also for the country which they all love, that they should take one form of work rather than another.
Given the opportunity which this Order will afford, I believe that the Ministry of Labour will be able successfully to persuade those looking for jobs to go to the right quarter and thus we may see very fruitful results from this Order without any violation of our prejudices and beliefs about the freedom of labour and the hatred of direction. I am confident that the Ministry of Labour will, by this means, make a marked impression on the problem before us.
I was glad to note that the Ministry had reached complete agreement with the best type of employment agencies. Both the trade unions and the agencies which

deal with employment in special fields have a contribution to make which it is difficult to operate through the ordinary exchanges, and I am glad the Minister has been able to reach agreement with them.

Mr. Victor Yates: While it is true that there is no sanction against the Minister, would not the right hon. Gentleman agree that there is a very strong sanction against the employer, so that it is not quite persuasion?

Mr. McCorquodale: The hon. Member is right. There is a sanction against the employer for recruiting labour other than through employment exchanges. But while the employer has to get his labour through the employment exchange, he is allowed to advertise, and if the employee wishes to go to a certain employer, in spite of the fact that the Ministry of Labour do not want him to, there is nothing to prevent him going through the employment exchange. There is no compulsion one way or the other.

Mr. Ness Edwards: Will the right hon. Gentleman indicate where the Order provides that the workman has a right to get a permit?

Mr. McCorquodale: In the Order, so far as I understand, there is nothing which stops the workman getting a permit, and as the right was his before the right remains his, I believe. But the Parliamentary Secretary is to reply and he is more able to answer that than I am.
I would mention, in passing, the Committee on the Employment of Elderly Workers which the Minister of Labour is setting up, and I hope that we shall hear something about these people from the Parliamentary Secretary.
I was very grateful to the right hon. Gentleman opposite, not only because he gave way to me, but also because he gave me the answer I had hoped for about Italian workmen in the mines. I believe that this is a question that we in this House cannot burk. If we are to make a recovery, we must, above all, produce more coal, so that we can export it to Europe, and bring about recovery, not only here but in Europe as well. Anything that helps towards achieving that end should be seized upon with


avidity by all of us, and one of the things that certainly would help would be an increased number of Italian miners.
I know, of course, that the right hon. Member for Blyth did a great deal of hard work in connection with advisory committees and in going out to see things personally, and I trust that any difficulty that may have been caused by any remarks made in the past, however indiscreet, will not obscure the real fact that the countries of the world want our coal at the present time.
I also agree with the right hon. Gentleman in his comment about exports. Our job is to sell overseas the goods we produce, and that is not going to be so easy in the future as it has been in the past. The sellers' market is closing. Salesmen, in the last few years, have been forced to spend much of their time pacifying potential customers who could not get what they wanted. They have been largely dependant on the production manager at home.
Now, however, the salesmen have to go out again for aggressive volume sales and the job of the production managers is to produce the goods which the salesman knows he can sell. If we can switch over to the new state of trade in the world, which is changing from a sellers' to a buyers' market, we have salesmen second to none, if only we use them rightly. If we do this, I am sure that there is no fear of serious unemployment in this country over the next few years.
Finally, I believe that we here have a lesson to learn from industry in these present conditions. We are very fond of lecturing both sides of industry about what they ought to do and ought not to do. I am afraid that I have been guilty of it myself, along with other hon. Members. While we have been arguing, bickering and quarrelling in the House of Commons over the last few weeks and months, industry has, in fact, set us an example by the two sides coming closer together and co-operating together to get on with the job of producing goods and serving the country.
I believe that if we in this House apply that lesson from British industry, and show a little more co-operation and working together in facing a great national problem, it will benefit not only us but the world.

5.54 p.m.

Mr. Sydney Silverman: I want to devote the few minutes I have to the question of the impact of present conditions on Lancashire, and I want to do it against the background of the whole picture, which background, however, would be more appropriately investigated and discussed on another occasion.
I hope the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Minister of Labour will not think it impertinent of me on this, the first occasion when he has addressed us on these matters, if I say that we all appreciated the fair-mindedness as well as the lucidity of what he had to say, and I hope he will appreciate that there is nothing personally hostile to him when I say that, while we all hope to hear him on many occasions, we would prefer that he sat on the other side of the Committee.
What everybody has been saying—so far as I know, quite correctly—is that we are in a very bad economic position, and that we can get out of our difficulty only by harder work, increased production and greater exports. I am not saying a single word in dissent from that proposition. It is, of course, absolutely true, and it has always been true, at any rate since 1945. It has been said by everybody who has ever spoken from the Front Bench for either party since 1945; and I, personally, and I think most ordinary people, would resent the implication that our present grievous and critical position is due to any default on the part of the workers in this country.
Nothing can be more disheartening to the people than to be told that there is only one thing which they need to do in order to put the country right, improve their own position and the position of their comrades, and then, when they have done it, and expect the reward of their efforts, to be told that they must begin again all over from the beginning.
It is not true that there has been any failure on the part of the workers, industrial managers or exporters in this country to realise that getting on our own economic feet and attaining better standards of living depends, and always has depended, on our own productivity, but, in a situation in which we have increased our production to almost double, in which our exports have gone up to 80 per cent. over any previous


record, when our consumption has been disciplined and restrained, it is very difficult then to explain to the people that they are in as critical a situation as ever they were before, and indeed, from some points of view, a more critical situation than ever before, and that the remedy again lies in tightening belts, working harder, producing more, consuming less and exporting more—all the same things all over again.
Every time the workers of this country have placed our international payments position in reasonable balance, they have immediately been faced by a new financial crisis which has had nothing to do with anybody in this country, so that the rewards of their abstinance and hard work have been further crises and a return to the doldrums. That is not a matter which I can develop at length now, and I leave it there, because I want hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite to apply their minds to the Lancashire situation.
It is common ground that most of the heat and burden of the day, so far as rising unemployment is concerned, is being borne now by the Lancashire textile industry, and in the main, though not entirely, by North-East Lancashire. What was the position before the war? I shall not go into a long description of it, but everybody remembers that it was a difficult position indeed. Lancashire never succeeded in becoming recognised as a Special Area, and never received the assistance, which Special Areas had, of capital assistance, development of trading estates and new industries.
Lancashire's tragedy before the war was—not exclusively, but very largely—conditioned by the fact that it had all its eggs in one basket. Nobody in that part of the country could live except by the cotton trade, and the cotton trade was physically withering away from year to year until it was unable any longer to provide these people with security and a reasonable standard of living. The great pressure on the Government in those days was to rectify the unemployment figures, which did not qualify Lancashire being treated as a Special Area, although the published figures never represented the real picture at all, because there was so much concealed unemployment and under-employment. If

the figures had been corrected for those variations, we should have been as badly hit as South Wales. When new industries give people other things to do, we can no longer depend solely on the cotton industry to provide a livelihood for the workers of that part of the country.
At the end of the war, when we were trying to rehabilitate our export trade, that contention was reversed with everybody's consent. Whereas before the war the emphasis had been on varying industry, after the war people were told—and correctly told—that we had to restore our export trade and that very largely we had to depend upon Lancashire's cotton and textile production for that purpose. The concentration of industry which we had during the war disappeared, and people were encouraged to do the one thing that they had sworn for the better part of a generation they would not do, namely, put their children into the mills. All of us on both sides of the House took part in that effort. We all went to our constituencies in Lancashire and said that the old days were gone forever.

Mr. Walter Fletcher: The hon. Gentleman is giving a very interesting picture, but in order to make it an accurate picture, he must point out that there were warning voices—his and mine among them—that the position would not last, as Japanese and other competition was coming along.

Mr. Silverman: I can quite see the hon. Gentleman's point, and I hope, if I still have time and can keep my bargain, to say a word about the Japanese situation before I sit down; but I take it that, except for the caveat he has entered, the hon. Gentleman does not dissent from the picture I have drawn.
People were told, "Do not bother; there is no longer any insecurity in this industry. Provided you do something about unfair Japanese competition, you need no longer fear that there will be unemployment, under-employment or insecurity. You can quite safely invest your careers in this industry." They were told that, and they did it.
I do not think anybody has a single criticism to offer of the way in which Lancashire workers and employers also "went to it" in the seven years following the war, or would say a single word in denigration of the contribution made by


the Lancashire textile industry to the position in which, but for recent developments—they are controversial, so I will not go into them—we had, in fact, restored our international solvency on trading account, especially in the dollar market, by the middle of 1950. That was largely due to the efforts of the Lancashire textile trade.
The position is now quite different. It may be that as yet the figures are not very large, but that depends on the yardstick used. If we compare the present situation with the tragedy and misery, almost wholly unrelieved, in the years between the wars, then by that comparison the figures are not yet very serious. But if we judge them by the amount of human suffering involved and by the amount of frustration and sheer broken-heartedness that the present position means to people who thought they had for ever turned their backs on those days, then we have to admit, I think, that even the present figures are significant and disturbing.
People in Lancashire want to know what the Government are going to say to them, Are the Government going to say, as the right hon. and learned Gentleman said just now, that this is a passing phase and that in a year or two it will be all right? Are they going to say "The future of the cotton industry is safe; you may rely upon it; do not fear that if you engage in this industry you will be worse off than if you do other things, because everything will be all right"? Is that what the Government are going to say? If it is, then it is incumbent upon them to do something now on a temporary basis to alleviate the suffering now being borne, as otherwise nobody will believe them.
If, on the other hand, the Government are going to say "The happy days are over; you can no longer depend on full and secure employment in this industry; it is a contracting industry; new competitors are coming along; Japan and Western Germany are coming along; your security in the years following the war has been due to the fact that your former competitors were temporarily out of the field, but they are now coming back again," then the Government must do something to diversify industry in this area.
One can take either a defeatist or a constructive view of the situation. If we take a defeatist view and think that the industry will not be able to maintain the position it occupied in the immediate post-war years, then we must do something now, before it is too late, to introduce new industries into the area in order to give Lancashire its fair share of the other work that the country has to do. If, on the other hand, we think that it is not necessary to take a defeatist view, then we must do something about it.
Reference has been made to Japan. I know it is not the right hon. and learned Gentleman's business, but it is impossible to leave it out of the picture altogether. Nobody in the Lancashire industry, let it be said again and again, fears or wishes to set aside unfairly any reasonable and fair competition but the immediate and rapid increase of the trouble has synchronised with the rise of the Japanese industry. That, at any rate, is beyond controversy. There is no reason in the world why Japan should not be prosperous, and Lancashire and Western Germany, too, so far as the textile industry is concerned, provided each is enabled to exploit its own natural market.
Japan's natural market is in China. There are hundreds of millions of people in China whose consumption is much less than it ought to be. The Japanese industry can be employed for more generations than we need take into our purview, at any rate in this short debate, in supplying its natural market in China. The only reason it is not doing it and is competing unfairly to the detriment of the Lancashire industry is that we have been fools enough to connive at a political settlement in that part of the world which has had the result of keeping Japan out of her natural market.

Mr. Arthur Holt: Will not the hon. Gentleman agree that before the war Japan did, in fact, have access to the Chinese market, but that we still had severe world competition from her?

Mr. Silverman: There was competition then, there is now, and there will be in the future, and why in the world should there not be? All I am saying is that, from the immediate point of view, the thing is being accentuated and intensified to an enormous degree—and quite unnecessarily—by keeping the Japanese out


of a very large market which would absorb a lot of the competition with which we are now faced.
It seems, therefore, that if the Government are going to take the line that the cotton industry is secure in the future, then they must "show willing," as the workers would say, in these political fields in a much more courageous and realistic way than so far they have shown any sign of doing.
I have reached the limit of the time at my disposal. I appreciate that what I have said has been a considerable oversimplification of the situation, but I hope that everybody will understand that, in the short time I had, that was inevitable. However, I hope it will be appreciated that I have presented a picture of what is in the mind of every cotton worker in Lancashire. If we are to appeal to him for greater abstinence, harder work, greater productivity and willingness to use new technical devices that compete with him and his labour, we must show that we understand his feelings, know his memories, share his hopes, and are doing something constructive about it.

6.12 p.m.

Mr. Frederick Lee: It is a great pity that because of the short notice at which this debate had to be arranged, time is not sufficient to allow all hon. Members in all parts of the Committee who wish to take part to do so. But I think it has been made manifestly clear, especially on this side, that we view with extreme apprehension the tendencies we now see, especially in the Lancashire textile industry.
The Minister made a studious and detailed speech which we shall read carefully in order to assimilate all the figures he produced. I am sure that, as my hon. Friend the Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman) said, we appreciate the courteous and wide outlook the right hon. and learned Gentleman brings to these extremely vital human problems, and we wish him well.
If I may take up a point to which my right hon. Friend the Member for Blyth (Mr. Robens) referred—and I do not say this in any acrimonious way—I hope the Minister will take the opportunity before long—and I will give way if he will do it now—to say something about the statement made by his hon. Friend the Member for Garston (Mr. Raikes) so that the

bitterness which has now entered the souls of many of our miners could be obliterated by their knowing that what the hon. Member said is in no way a reflection of Government's policy or of the views of the right hon. and learned Gentleman. I am not asking him to repudiate his hon. Friend the Member for Garston as a man, but to say something to relieve the present position.

Sir W. Monckton: This much 'I take the opportunity to say—that I have not for a moment thought that the reason which was given in those words to which the hon. Member for Newton (Mr. Lee) refers had anything to do with these troubles. I regret that any suggestion should be entertained as coming from the Government, at any rate, of any possible belief that it was that which really induced the miners to take that decision.

Mr. Lee: I am sure that that statement will probably help in many ways to sweeten the atmosphere among miners.
Reference has been made to the Notification of Vacancies Order in the course of the debate. As the right hon. and learned Gentleman said, it does not imply any compulsion upon people to go to the employment exchanges to obtain work. In the main the right hon. and learned Gentleman wishes to divert people to the engineering industry from their present employment. He will know that there is in being a dilution agreement in the engineering industry. I hope that before he consents to unskilled men being sent to work in an engineering factory, he will make quite certain that the shop stewards and men's representatives have agreed first that there is, in fact, a need for dilution in that factory.
That is within the agreement itself, and it would lead probably to all sorts of misunderstandings and problems if the Ministry of Labour persuaded people who have no engineering background to go to a factory unless men representing that factory had had the opportunity to discuss the matter and had agreed that dilution was necessary.
In his analysis of what was happening in the textile industry, the Minister gave us the background to the problem. I want to put to him the point which my hon. Friend the Member for Nelson and


Colne put so well. We are concerned about the future of the Lancashire textile industry. I do not want to reiterate all that has happened in that industry in the last 20 years or so, but in recent years there has been a new hope and belief that the Lancashire textile industry was now firmly established on its feet and that for as long as one could see there would be permanency of employment within the industry. Indeed, it was on that basis that the trade unions agreed to all kinds of modernisation to enable the industry to produce at a greater pace than ever before.
If, within such a short time after the unions agreed to these progressive measures, the thanks they are to receive is to see thousands of their members thrown on to the employment exchanges, it will have a bad effect not only on the thinking of the cotton unions but on unions in every industry in which the right hon. and learned Gentleman is anxious to obtain agreement on dilution. If the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour can add anything to what the right hon. and learned Gentleman said about the Government's ideas for bringing prosperity back to the textile industry, we shall be very glad to hear him.
Can the Parliamentary Secretary say that it is not intended to allow the industry to run down its existing manpower—in other words, to divert its people to armament work? If the Government wish to maintain the present manpower in the industry I hope the Parliamentary Secretary will say so in order that the bitterness to which my hon. Friend the Member for Nelson and Colne referred, and which he did not exaggerate in the least, shall not come back to the textile industry, as in pre-war days.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Blyth put the philosophical side of the argument very well. We hold firmly to the conviction that full employment for all our people is an essential condition of a sound and progressive internal economy and of a successful export drive. We refute absolutely any suggestion that a measure of unemployment is necessary as a stimulus to others who are employed. We adhere to the words of Robert Louis Stevenson when he said:
The saddest object in civilisation, and to my mind the greatest confession of its failure, is the man who can work, and wants to work, and is not allowed to work.

As one who has suffered in that respect, I agree with those sentiments.
In the last analysis, the Minister of Labour is not able to determine the level of employment at any time. He is largely dependent for his success in maintaining full employment upon the policies of his colleagues in the Cabinet, and especially upon those in the Treasury, the economic Departments, and the Board of Trade. I suggest that the Ministry of Labour figures rather reflect the results of the policies of those Departments.
I have here a quotation from a speech, made by the right hon. Gentleman who is now the Minister of State for Economic Affairs, which I have never forgotten and which causes me the greatest apprehension. He said, "There must, as a first step, be the compulsion of unemployment in the existing industries." [An HON. MEMBER: "Not for him."] At the time the right hon. Member said that, it did not matter a lot; he was a back bench Member of an Opposition. But it does matter now, because he is in charge of much of our economic planning—if, indeed, there be any planning these days.
The decisions which the right hon. Member takes will now be reflected in the figures which the Department of the Minister of Labour will have to publish, I confess that while we see right hon. Gentlemen who have expressed themselves in those terms in charge of the economic policies of the Government, then, indeed, there are grounds for the apprehensions which my hon. Friends have expressed in their speeches this afternoon.

Mr. Harold Sutcliffe: Could the hon. Member tell the House in what year that statement was made?

Mr. Lee: Yes. It is an extract from an article in the "Sunday Times" of 14th November, 1947. If the hon. Gentleman wants me to quote it all, I will quote it. It is certainly a quotation from an article which the right hon. Gentleman wrote for the "Sunday Times" on the date I have mentioned.
It is because that sort of thing is said not by wild, irresponsible people but by persons who now control our destiny—in the fact that they control our economic planning—that we are extremely apprehensive about the future. Indeed,


on the very day that we are discussing manpower, the cotton workers of Lancashire are facing their blackest week since the end of the war. It is admitted that some 40,000 of them are now either on short time or actually unemployed.
While the right hon. and learned Gentleman could naturally give us only the figures of people who have registered with the exchanges, the under-employment effect is probably more serious at the moment than the unemployment problem. Many employers are still hanging on to their labour in the belief that the recession is temporary. If they come to the conclusion that it is not a temporary but a permanent state of affairs they will unload many, many thousands on to the market and we shall have once more a lack of employment begetting a lack of purchasing power.

Mr. S. Silverman: A great many married women—and Lancashire depends a lot on married women—elected not to take part in the National Insurance scheme. The result is that these people, when unemployed, do not come into the figures at all.

Mr. Lee: My hon. Friend is quite right. That point is quite valid. During the economic debate on 30th January of this year, the President of the Board of Trade tried to insist that unemployment in the textile industry had something to do with Purchase Tax, utility schemes, and so on. He said:
One thing which has a very great bearing on it is the manner in which the textile industry has been tied up in the complexities of Purchase Tax and utility control until it can hardly move one way or the other."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 30th January, 1952; Vol. 495, c. 241.]
I suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that if the production figures for the textile industry since the end of the war have been attained when they are so tied up because they can hardly move one way or the other, it takes a lot of explaining away, because those figures reflect great credit on the industry.
Instead of passing it off as a result of a scheme which he wants to get rid of—the utility scheme—he should think of the whole of the present policy of the Cabinet. I believe that this credit restriction policy, with the drastic restrictions on hire purchase, which is being pursued under the cry of diverting labour to industries which are already

short of raw materials, may well bequeath to the Minister of Labour a legacy of a large number of unemployed.
I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will be able to say something about these policies when he replies, and will be able to tell us whether he thinks that this credit restriction policy which his Government are now pursuing has had something to do with the present position in the textile industry, or whether he thinks that they can still continue that policy and not drive the country into a big unemployment problem.
I do not accept the fact that the Notification of Vacancies Order, in the context against which I have been speaking, is the meek and mild affair that it looks. By itself I think it is innocuous, but when we look at the shortage of materials which now obtains, and at the efforts which are being made and will continue to be made to divert those raw materials to the re-armament industries, this Order acquires a new significance. If we are to expect the engineering industry, for instance, to continue to absorb all the thousands of people who have no background in the industry, without some guarantee that the raw materials will be supplied, I feel that the unions concerned will probably demand a lot of guarantees before they will continue with that policy.
When one sees an Order like the Notification of Vacancies Order, produced by a Conservative Government, with the implications of what I have said about raw materials and their shortages, one is inclined to look back upon what right hon. Gentlemen opposite said about things of this sort. The hon. Gentleman who is now the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, speaking about the Control of Engagements Order, said on 28th February, 1946:
I would say to them"—
that is, the Government of the day—
that if it be necessary … to introduce whole-hogging direction of labour in order to introduce whole-hogging Socialism, surely it would be more intellectually honest to say so and to admit that they had torn up the Red Flag, in order to use the shreds as red tape to tie up the limbs of the British people."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 28th February, 1946; Vol. 419, c. 2225.]
Perhaps the hon. Gentleman, from his present lofty position, will have time to reflect upon those words, uttered in his younger and more irresponsible days.
It was the intention of the late Government, when the re-armament programme was embarked upon, to try to step up our export of textiles to offset the drop which would necessarily take place in the export of engineering goods. Can the hon. Gentleman tell us whether the Government have any plans to replace those exports of textiles, which we wanted to boost for the reason I have said? Have they any other industries in mind, the products of which could be put into the gap which is now left in our export position because of our failure to export textiles in the quantities we should like?
It is now expected that the engineering industry can carry the whole weight of re-armament and still maintain a high level of export goods. Can we have some figures of the requirements in steel and other raw materials in that enlarged engineering industry, if it is to maintain full employment in its own ranks? I asked the Minister of Supply for a statement about the types of steel which we are to get from America and the percentages of the different types contained in that steel, because that will have a very big bearing on what happens in the engineering industry.
The Prime Minister announced that the re-armament programme cannot be completed within the three-year period. When my right hon. Friend and I were at the Ministry of Labour we had certain figures in mind for the number of people we had to divert to the re-armament programme. I submit to the Government that the decision to lengthen the period of time which the re-armament programme will take means that there is not now the same need to divert the same number of people as there was then, and I want to know whether the Parliamentary Secretary can give a figure to represent the difference between the position as it was before the Prime Minister's speech and as it is now.
I hope that we shall get this problem of diverting people into its correct perspective. For instance, we have been told that there will be a need for a great number of people to be sent into engineering and to be trained for the production of engineering goods. In 1939, when dilution was first agreed—and incidentally, before the war began—there was a great problem in that the country was going to war.
In this instance the problem is limited in that we have to infuse an arms programme into an existing commercial production. I hope the Government will not, therefore, become all panic stricken and start to bring people out of employment in some industries when they cannot possibly be absorbed inside that section of the engineering industry which is needed for re-armament.
Again, when we had to dilute to such a large degree in 1939, we had not the blessing of the Distribution of Industry Acts. The low figure of unemployment in the post-war period would not have been possible, no matter how busy the country was as a whole, but for the working of the Distribution of Industry Acts. Incidentally, as a personal opinion—and not necessarily the opinion of my hon. Friends—I think the time has come when the right hon. Gentleman's Department, and not the Board of Trade, should control those Acts. In any event, because of the success of the Acts in diversifying industry, there will not be anything like the same necessity for dilution as there was before 1939 and before the Acts came into operation. If there is a careful placing of orders it will help enormously to avoid diverting many thousands of people from existing industries.
Could I make this suggestion? If we are to make a success of our export drive at a time when we are short of all sorts of materials, especially steel, major decisions must be made about the type of product we are to try to export. I suggest that we should try to export those products which contain a great amount of skilled labour and a very small amount of steel, and I believe that if the Government examine closely the saving which we can obtain from such a policy they will find that it is very considerable indeed.
I put a Question down to the Minister of Education a few days ago, and she passed the buck to the Minister of State for Economic Affairs. It was a Question on the production of scientists and technologists per head of the population in Great Britain. The answer was:
The number of scientists and technologists coming from the universities and technical colleges of Great Britain with ordinary first degree and higher degree qualifications (or their equivalent) in the academic year


1950–51 is estimated to be about 1 in 3,000 of the population."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 28th February, 1952; Vol. 496, c. 175.]
I do not know whether hon. Members saw, in "Lloyds Bank Review" of January this year, an article by Professor Ronald S. Edwards in which he went into considerable detail on this vital subject and took examples from both our largest and smallest competitors—United States of America and Switzerland. He says that in both those countries the production of scientists and technologists is far and away higher than the production in Britain. He gives a figure which is more favourable to us than the one which the Minister for Economic Affairs gave but, nevertheless, he points out that in the United States roughly one in every 400 of the population
was at the same time reading science of technology in a college or university recognised by one or more regional accrediting associations.
When one sees figures of that sort one must ask, and ask again, whether the Government will hold to their insane idea of cutting the education facilities for our people, because it amounts almost to hypocrisy for a Government to ask for increased production over and over again and yet to cut out the very facilities which alone can give the increased production for which they ask.
The Professor makes an important point about the application of science to industry when he says:
The weakness of the British position, according to most observers, is that over large sections of its industry science is not applied as quickly or as widely as in other leading industrial countries.
There is great scope for the Government to investigate that sort of thing. Again, taking Switzerland and the United States as examples, the Professor points out that
in both countries the relations between the universities and business have been closer. In both countries proportionately more university men have found careers in industry. Although the number of full time university students in Britain is now 85,000, as against 50,000 in 1939, we are still behind our competitors.
I will not develop that further, because there is no time, but I hope the Government will spend a great deal of time and thought over the manner in which, when the industrial productivity teams have reported, we can get the results of their deliberations applied in industry at a far

quicker rate than has hitherto been the case, because I think it is true that in most countries there is a closer link between pure science, if one can so describe it, and industry. That is perhaps because we have been inclined in Britain to elevate the scientist far above the level of industry. My hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ellis Smith) referred to this earlier. I believe it has made for a gap which we have to close so that the results of scientific investigation can be put at the disposal of industry at the earliest possible moment.
I would ask also, with the hon. Member for Reigate (Mr. Vaughan-Morgan), whether we have made any advance in making it possible for old people to stay in industry after the normal retiring age. I know that the Parliamentary Secretary has a Committee on this, and I should like him to tell us, if he can, what advance has been made in altering pension schemes and insurances which, in many instances, reach maturity at 65 and, therefore, prevent old people from remaining in industry. What advance has been made in that direction? I should be glad to know.
In conclusion, I would emphasise what my right hon. Friend has said—that we shall do all we can to assist in this matter. Indeed, the policy of this party towards the necessity for vastly increased production has not changed merely because we have gone into Opposition. We realise that in the last analysis the standard of life of our people will depend upon our productive efforts. We are more than proud of the way in which organised labour has responded to the demands of the post-war situation.
We believe that, in spite of the change in Government, they will continue to give of their best in the interests of the country which they love so deeply, as they have done for so long. We can give the assurance that we shall do everything in our power to see that the policy of increasing production, in order that the standards of life of our people shall continue to rise, continues to be our policy.

6.40 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour (Sir Peter Bennett): We have had a very interesting debate, and several matters have been raised. I shall not attempt to cover the ground


already covered by my right hon. and learned Friend, because he answered in advance a very large number of the points that have been put, I shall devote the time I have to dealing in more detail with some specific matters that have been mentioned.
First, there was the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ellis Smith), who gave some medals to the engineering industry. He was followed by the hon. Member for Leeds, West (Mr. Pannell), who did not quarrel with him on that. They will not expect me to differ from them in the nice things they said about the engineering industry. I must say that in the engineering industry we think that we are the salt of the earth, carrying the nation largely on our shoulders, and we are only sorry that other industries are not as favoured as we are.
There is one thing I must make clear. There is no alteration whatever to unemployment benefit made possible by this Notification of Vacancies Order. The hon. Gentleman seemed to have doubts about that. The Notification of Vacancies Order cannot have the slightest effect one way or another in respect of entitlement to unemployment benefit. The hon. Gentleman wanted an assurance categorically. I give it as definitely as I can. There was some talk about how the Order will be worked in Coventry. The Committee can take it that this Order will be honestly administered by officials who have had experience in the past, as some of my hon. Friends know; and they have every intention of carrying out exactly what is set out. There are no ulterior motives behind it.

Mr. Percy Shurmer: Surely, while the Order is not direction of labour, it is indirect direction of labour. It is obvious that men becoming unemployed are, because of the high cost of living, and the fact that they cannot live on the unemployment pay, forced into jobs, whether they like them or not.

Sir P. Bennett: I have not denied for one moment, and nor has anybody else, that the alternative to taking a job is to remain unemployed. There has not been any suggestion of that. The point is that there is no direction to any particular job. A man will be told where the work is, and that that is where he will be most

valuable. If he says he is not going there, if he says, "I am going somewhere else; what other vacancy have you?," he will be told, and he will go to it.

Mr. Ness Edwards: The man will be able to do that only if he gets a permit—a permit from the vacancy officer—[Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman had better read his own Order. I would remind him of Article 6 in his own Order, which says that a man is an excepted person if he holds a permit. That means he must get from the vacancy officer a permit to have other employment. If the vacancy officer refuses to give him the permit, what remedy has he? What is his remedy if he cannot get a permit?

Sir P. Bennett: He does not need a permit. The permit, as the right hon. Gentleman knows, is for special cases. There are two things the local office can do. If the worker will not take the job to which we try to persuade him to go, the local office can then submit to him another job. This is normal administration, which the Minister has undertaken to do. Therefore, there is no question about it: a man can go to any employment that he wishes—but for one exception, that if the employer is thought to have more labour than he ought, the man cannot go to that employer. He cannot be punished for going, but the employer can be punished for taking him on. There is no sanction on the man in any shape or form. He can be given a permit to find his own job. There will in fact be no need for this, because the local office will already have been notified that he wants to find his own job.

Mr. Ness Edwards: The hon. Gentleman seems to have the last part of the Order right; but the man must have a permit. If the hon. Gentleman will read Article 3, he will see that everybody must be engaged who is not in an excepted class. Article 6 of the Order provides for those people who will not take an offer. Then they are to be given a permit to do something else.

Sir P. Bennett: The right hon. Gentleman has got it wrong. He can take it from me that a permit is given if the local exchange does not feel there is time


enough to find him a vacancy. Domestic servants and similar classes may, as the right hon. Gentleman knows, be given permits to seek their own jobs if they can get them. This Order has been prepared by very careful people, and I am quite certain they know what it means. I know what it means, and the right hon. Gentleman and I can argue it out afterwards, for I think that we have dealt with that point sufficiently, and we had better get on with something else, because time is running short.
The hon. Member for Leeds, West, was very concerned about the shortage of steel in the Oxford district. I entirely agree with him. As the Committee knows, my hon. and right hon. Friends are giving a great deal of attention to endeavouring to see that steel is allocated where it will be most valuable, and where there is labour which is needed for armament industries orders which will come later on. With the best will in the world, it has not been possible to do all that we should have liked to do in that respect, but full notes have been made of the hon. Gentleman's remarks, and the hon. Gentleman can be assured that the points he has made will not be overlooked, because we are as anxious as he is—and I am very anxious myself, for other reasons—to see that as much steel goes into such places as possible; and I am anxious that it should, to make my life a little easier.
The hon. Gentleman talked about the engineering industry and preached a little sermon about it. I agree with him about the good will that there is in that industry, but he talked about the "yellow notices." I do not think he called them that. He was talking about a lock-out many years ago. It is 30 years since they had that, and we have had peace in that industry ever since. A certain section of wooden-headed people said certain things, but we have had peace in the industry since.

Mr. Pannell: I am glad that after a number of years the hon. Gentleman says his friends are wooden-headed people, but he really ought not to take anything out of a speech like that. I merely referred to the good will of the industry and the history of the industry. I said that it was not until 1935, when re-armament began again, that engineering wages began to rise. We were kept on the floor

at £3 a week before that time. Really, it is not good enough to choose that date. I would point out that since 1935 we have had a war.

Sir P. Bennett: Anyhow, I have had to pay wages, and I never noticed they were kept down on the floor as long as that. They started to go up, and the union—the A.E.U., to which the hon. Gentleman referred—is a very active and very live body, and I do not believe they went to sleep during that period. It would not have been like them.

Mr. Pannell: There were plenty of unemployed.

Sir P. Bennett: My hon. Friend the Member for Reigate (Mr. Vaughan-Morgan) referred to the terms of reference of the Committee which has been set up to deal with the older people. The terms of reference are as wide as possible:
To advise and assist the Minister in promoting the employment of older men and women.
They could not be much wider than that; they can discuss anything. It is all a question of where the age limit is put. As the "Ministry of Labour Gazette" says:
In addition to advising the Minister on how to promote the employment of older people, a most important aspect of the Committee's work will be the focus of attention of the various interests on the various aspects of the problem, and then to help to secure a co-ordinated approach on a wide front towards its solution.
When my hon. Friend sees the names of the Committee, which are being considered by my right hon. and learned Friend, I think he will agree that all the organisations and special factors which he mentioned have been taken into account, and that this is not to be a mere flash in the pan, just another working party which produces a report to go into a pigeon-hole and be forgotten. This Committee will have a real definite job of work. We appreciate that this problem will remain with us for many years, with our ageing population, and it is of the utmost importance that it should be solved. The work of this Committee must be judged by results, and I hope that in due course the results will justify the trouble which has been taken by a great many voluntary people to help us in this respect.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Epsom (Mr. McCorquodale) exchanged


a few words with the right hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Ness Edwards), but I think that between us we have settled that, so I need not go back on it. My right hon. Friend referred, in passing, to the troubles in Lancashire, which were also dealt with by the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman). I am sure the we were all very touched by the picture he drew for us. Whether or not we agree with his ultimate conclusion, I do not know. We are very concerned at what is happening in Lancashire and we can understand the feelings of the Lancashire people. They have been through very desperate times in the past, and they thought they were back to prosperity.
But we must remember that this problem is not restricted to Lancashire at the present time. The whole textile industry throughout the world is in the doldrums, but the general view appears to be that that will not go on forever. Whether Lancashire will get everything it wants or would like to have, I am not prepared to say. None of us gets all he wants or would like to have.

Mr. S. Silverman: I know the hon. Gentleman is getting very near the end of the time available to him, but I should like him to deal with the point I put. The Government ought to make up their minds whether Lancashire is to be safely occupied with the cotton industry alone, or whether that will not be so. If the first, that is all very well; and it may help to alleviate the immediate situation. If the second, then the Government must accept an obligation to relieve this area which, unlike all the others in the world to which the hon. Gentleman referred, has no other industry.

Sir P. Bennett: That point is appreciated, and my right hon. and learned Friend has already said that he understands it quite clearly. We appreciate that a decision will have to be taken. It need not be taken at the present moment, and I cannot say exactly what it will be; but a decision will have to be taken, and if it is not possible to get Lancashire running on textiles at a reasonably full rate of production we shall have to consider what are the alternatives. There is no question that that must be considered.
The hon. Member for Newton (Mr. Lee) will not expect me at this time to make a pronouncement on Government policy on what will happen under those conditions. I personally have the greatest faith that the textile depression, which is not peculiar to this country, will change, and that with the increasing demand throughout the world there is room for us to hold our own with our quality goods, while allowing other nations to export their goods, so that one does not benefit at the expense of the other. But that has got to be worked out.
The hon. Member for Newton also seemed to suggest that there was some ulterior motive behind the Notification of Vacancies Order. I can assure him that there is no ulterior motive behind the order. It is an attempt to make it clear to the worker where his services will be most valuable, and I am certain that any arrangements he and his colleagues might have made had they remained in office would have been treated by us in the manner we shall expect them to treat our arrangements.

Mr. Ness Edwards: By having an all-night sitting?

Sir P. Bennett: We believe that a large number of our workers are only too anxious to take jobs where they will be most useful. Sometimes they say, "I did not know. How was I to know without being told?" This Order does not introduce any great complication; it has been tried out before, and it is being tried out again without any direction. We believe in our countrymen. It was proved during the war that they would work where they were told they would be most useful in the national interest, and we believe that this Order will help. The hon. Member asked me for figures. As he well knows, I have not got those figures; but my right hon. and learned Friend will carefully study the points he made to see whether we can give some more guidance.
Reference was also made to engineering goods for export, and it was suggested that steel would be necessary if those engineering goods were to take the place of consumer goods in the market. Steel is being carefully allocated for the production of those engineering goods which are wanted for export. The closest consideration is always given to the conversion value of scarce materials, and


materials are allocated so that they will command the best return and produce the largest number of dollars.
Both I and my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Education noted what was said about education. I think there need be no fear that the reports of the Anglo-American Productivity Council are not being fully used. Before I took office, I happened to be one of the chairmen, so I am most anxious that those reports should be fully used.

Question put, and agreed to.

Resolved,
That a sum, not exceeding £918,376,000, be granted to Her Majesty, on account, for or towards defraying the charges for the Civil Revenue Departments and for the Ministry of Defence for the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1953.

To report Progress, and ask leave to sit again.—[Mr. Heath.]

Resolution to be reported Tomorrow.

Committee also report Progress; to sit again Tomorrow.

BRITISH TRANSPORT COMMISSION BILL (By Order)

Order for Second Reading read.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."—[The Chairman of Ways and Means.]

7.0 p.m.

Mr. Alfred Barnes: Before we commence discussion of this Measure, may I ask your guidance, Mr. Speaker, on the range of the debate. I think that you are aware that your predecessor in the Chair permitted on the Annual Works Bill of the British Transport Commission a fairly wide debate provided it was within the general purposes of the Bill, and I think that generally met the convenience of Members in all parts of the House. I should like to know whether you are prepared to allow a similar debate on this Bill.

Mr. Speaker: I am obliged to the right hon. Gentleman for having given me notice that he intended to ask this question. That has enabled me to consider the matter. The provisions of the present Bill relate mainly to matters with which the Railway Executive alone are con

cerned. It is true that the London Transport Executive are concerned in the acquisition of one small area of land in Camberwell, and in the extensions of time granted by Clause 34 of the Bill. The Docks and Inland Waterways Executive are concerned only in the transfer of some portion of the Nottingham Canal to the Nottingham Corporation. No other Executives are directly concerned with any of the provisions of the Bill. Under the Ruling of my predecessor, it seems to me, therefore, that, so far as the London Transport Executive and the Docks and Inland Waterways Executive are concerned, the debate must be limited to the actual provisions of the Bill, but the administration of the Railway Executive is open to debate.
I would add, however, that in my view any question of freight charges or of fares is not a matter of administration. The procedure to be followed with regard to freight charges and fares is laid down in Part V of the Transport Act, 1947, under which the final responsibility for a charges scheme rests on the Transport Tribunal or, during the transitional period, on the Minister. In neither case is the Transport Commission the responsible body, and, as to make them responsible would involve an Amendment of a public Statute, I do not consider a debate on that matter could be in order on a Private Bill.

Mr. Barnes: May I submit a further point to you on that Ruling, Mr. Speaker, which I appreciate is very wide and carefully phrased? Nevertheless, it does appear to me that by that Ruling we are very largely to be confined this evening to a discussion of the affairs of the Railway Executive. I submit that the British Transport Commission, in its administrative, supervisory and owning sense, cannot and should not be ruled out of consideration in debates of this kind.
On the general administration of the British Transport Commission, I think that the procedure that we have followed hitherto did take that into consideration, and gave the House an opportunity, from time to time, of reviewing not only the work of the Executive which might be concerned in a Bill of this kind, but the general administration of the British Transport Commission.
I am in no way challenging or querying your Ruling with regard to the


charges scheme. That, I agree, is definitely laid down by the Tribunal machinery, but I hope that your Ruling will not be so rigid tonight as to prevent a general reference to the administration of the British Transport Commission with regard to efficiency, investment of capital and matters of that kind.

Mr. Speaker: I think that is a very reasonable request and as we go on I should like to hear what is said about that. My concern in giving the Ruling I did was to separate the functions of the various Executives and to indicate that, while I thought a general debate on the Railway Executive was in order, a debate on the London Transport Executive and on the Docks and Inland Waterways Executive should be confined to the matters in the Bill. I do not dissent from what the right hon. Gentleman has said, and perhaps as we go along that may be clarified.

Sir Herbert Williams: The County of London Electricity Company Bill was defeated, not because of anything in the Bill, but solely because the promoters were not on the King's Roll. Not a single word was said about the provisions of the Bill, and the debate was on the merits of the promoters of the Bill, who were petitioning Parliament to give them further powers, and Parliament denied them those further powers. Then there was the case of the London Passenger Transport Board, whose Bill was defeated entirely because that Board failed to grant facilities to employees to go to Territorial camps. Again, there was no reference to one single provision of the Bill.
Therefore, when people petition Parliament for powers, it seems to me that we are entitled to examine the merits of the petitioners, judged by their past conduct. With regard to other things, for example, the change of fares, which has caused such excitement in the last day or so in London, I am led to believe, rightly or wrongly, that the action of those concerned in interpreting the award of the Tribunal is quite different from what was expected by those who read the Tribunal award, and I wonder if it would be in order to discuss that.

Mr. Geoffrey Bing: May I support what has been said by the hon. Member for Croydon, East (Sir H. Williams). Those who studied the previous Speaker's Rulings on 27th February, 1949, and 30th March, 1950, and attempted to prepare what they hoped to say on this matter accordingly, feel, I think, if I may say so with all respect, that they are a little circumscribed by what seems to be, perhaps, a departure from the general line then taken.
For example, there was raised on those occasions the subject of passenger and freight charges, and Mr. Speaker's only reservation was that they should not be discussed while being subject to inquiry, but that at the conclusion of the inquiry how they were applied and the form in which they were applied was a proper matter for discussion by the House. We also discussed the effect of increased charges on the economy and the integration of road and rail transport. With great respect, it does affect the position of the railways if we cannot discuss how they are going to be fed by road services.

The Minister of Transport (Mr. John Maclay): Further to your Ruling, Mr. Speaker, and to the remarks made by the hon. and learned Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Bing), I do not think he has referred to the Ruling given by Mr. Speaker on 8th May, 1951.

Mr. Speaker: There have been various Rulings on this difficult matter, but I am quite clear in my own mind that one cannot properly alter the machinery for determining freight rates and fares without a repeal of a public Act, and it is for that reason that I feel obliged to rule that subject out of order.
With regard to the other cases mentioned by the hon. Member for Croydon, East (Sir H. Williams), the rules of order and relevancy vary with every Bill, and it is very difficult to apply what may have been said and ruled on a past occasion to what should happen here. This Bill does, it seems to me, contain a number of miscellaneous powers relating almost entirely to the Railway Executive, and therefore I should allow latitude on that matter. As regards what the right hon. Gentleman said about the Transport Commission, I think that is sensible, and as the debate progresses we can adhere to order and allow a sufficiently intelligent debate on the matter.

Mr. Barnes: That was the point which I desired to make clear—that the Railway Executive is an Executive of the British Transport Commission, and if the affairs of the British Transport Commission are not ruled out of consideration, it appears to me that many of the points raised by hon. Members in this House can legitimately be brought in as general arguments in relation to matters in this particular Bill.

Mr. Maclay: I take it that would exclude the possibility of discussing the British Transport Commission's actions and dealings with their other Executives.

Mr. Speaker: In so far as reference is necessary to the Commission in order to illustrate an argument about the Railway Executive, I think that would be in order. As the other Executives of the Transport Commission are not themselves affected by the Bill, except on the two small instances which I have picked out, reference to the Commission in these cases should be much more restricted.

Mr. A. Edward Davies: Further to the point of order about the scope of the Bill, in the parent Act it is laid down that the Commission shall submit charges schemes to the Minister, and, indeed, they were under the obligation to provide charges schemes within two years of the passing of the Act, but some latitude has been given in that matter and the requirement has been deferred for some time. While we appreciate that it may not be strictly in order to deal with detailed charges schemes which are the proper concern of the Rates Tribunal, I submit that where organisation involves the principle of the charges without reference to specific figures and also touches the question of integration, if we are considering Railway Executive administration it would be in order to that extent to bring these matters into the debate.

Mr. Speaker: I do not like to give a Ruling in advance. I hope that what I have said indicates what is in my mind on the matter. We shall see how we get on.

7.12 p.m.

Mr. Ernest Davies: Although you have ruled, Mr. Speaker, that the question of fares and charges should be kept out of our discussion on

the Second Reading of this Bill, it is nonetheless appropriate that the debate is taking place today when many people in London have been brought up with a shock against the reality of the cost of travelling. All consideration of transport can only be in relation to the provision of the most efficient and economic public service to keep the burden imposed on the public at the lowest possible cost.
I welcome this opportunity of having a wide debate on the question of transport, because it is the first occasion we have had since the present Government took office of debating the subject in this House; in spite of the fact that certain hon. Gentlemen opposite who are now holding office in the Government were from time to time taking every opportunity of raising transport matters here and pressing for further public accountability in this House for the British Transport Commission and its Executives. I hope the fact that there has been silence on transport matters here since 25th October, except for a brief debate during the Address on the King's Speech, means that the election pledges and proposals on transport put forward by hon. Members opposite have largely been forgotten, as has so much else that was included in their programme.
The Bill makes a pitiful provision for a number of new works. I am well aware that already the British Transport Commission has a fairly large programme fully authorised, but, unfortunately, it has been unable to carry out a very large part of its programme owing to the difficulties of obtaining authority to engage on a capital investment programme, and it is the capital investment programme of the British Transport Commission which presents the greatest difficulties facing British Railways today. The inability of the Commission to spend adequately on redevelopment, re-equipment and new works is largely responsible for the burden which transport imposes upon the travelling public today.
Not only are there the war-time arrears to be made up and war damage to be overcome, but the Railway Executive has also to make up the deficiencies which it inherited from the private enterprise system. It is regrettable that in


the days before the war the main line railway companies did not sufficiently cope with the competition which faced them from road transport and sufficiently modernise and re-equip the transport industry to enable an economic, efficient and modern system to be created. Apart from the main lines themselves, a very large part of the railway system of the country was in a deplorable state at the outbreak of the war.
The current need today, therefore, arises partly from past neglect by private enterprise and partly from the excessive use of the railways during the war and from the accumulation of war-time arrears of renewals, new works and so forth. This is made clear from the comparatively small amount which the railway companies spent on new works, development and renewals in the years between the wars.
In the 11 years from 1928 to 1938 an average of only £4 million a year was spent on additional works and improvements, and on renewals the average was about £13 million a year, which means that the total amount spent by the railway companies per year between the wars was on an average only £17 million, and that on a capital which exceeded £1,000 million. I do not think anyone would deny that a quite inadequate amount was spent on capital investment on the British railway system between the wars and that owing to this it was not possible to modernise the railways and to create the conditions essential to provide an economic and efficient public service.

Mr. Geoffrey Wilson: Are the figures which the hon. Gentleman has quoted for capital only, or do they include the considerable reserves which were kept from ordinary income and used for maintenance?

Mr. Davies: I am giving the total figures which were spent on capital development and renewals. Today the need is to overtake these arrears, particularly the war-time arrears, and it is regrettable that so far since the end of the war the railways have received an inadequate share of the capital investment programme. Their share has been an unfair share, and not only that, but

the allocation of materials for the Railway Executive, particularly of steel and the most important materials for railway construction, for the renewal of rolling stock and the like, has been quite insufficient, which means in effect that the priority which has been awarded to the Railway Executive—that is, through the British Transport Commission—has not been high enough.
In fact, the total amount which has been spent in the three years since nationalisation—1948 to 1950—has been only £143 million, of which £86 million was on rolling stock and £41 million went on renewals. That is an average of only £48 million. When one bears in mind the fact that the capital investment exceeds £1,000 million one can see how inadequate that amount is.
I plead with the Minister that he press very hard the claims of the British Transport Commission for an increased allocation in the capital development programme and for fairer treatment in the allocation of materials. At Question time today he was asked about the allocation of steel to the railways, and it was pointed out that, as a result of inadequate allocation, a certain number of railway workshops were on short time, or had had to close down, which has a very serious effect on the production of rolling stock at this time when it is essential that rolling stock be renewed and replaced.
The British Transport Commission, in its Annual Report for 1950, pointed out in several sections the need for capital investment and the handicap under which the railways were suffering as a result of the inability to carry out an adequate capital investment programme. It said:
As things are turning out, the public transport system may count itself fortunate if the ration of capital expenditure allowed to it suffices to patch and maintain the existing apparatus, let alone permit the introduction of large schemes of capital improvement or development.
It is difficult enough to make good the serious arrears in investments but it is essential, if we are to have an efficient and economical railway system able to operate profitably and charge reasonable fares to the travelling public and reasonable freight charges to the shipper, that there should be provision of adequate financial and physical resources to replace, re-equip and remodel the transport system. Only


then can the railway system become profitable, because until that re-equipment takes place the high expenditure which results from old equipment and the use of old capital assets puts an unnecessary and difficult burden upon the travelling public and the shippers of freight.
I should like the Minister to tell us tonight, if he is able to, how much the railways are to be allocated during the current year, 1952, for capital investment, whether it has been cut down, or whether the Minister has found it possible to obtain an increase over the 1951 figure—which we have not been given yet, so far as I am aware. If we can have the 1951 and the 1952 figures for comparison with the £79 million-odd which was allocated to the Railway Executive in 1950, we shall be able to see whether the necessity for developing the railway system has been fully appreciated and was being proceeded with.
Anyone who looks around the railway system today can see the necessity for this modernisation. I have read recently that there is a craze for the collection of Victoriana. It seems to me that the railways have anticipated this new hobby and has accumulated the finest collection of Victorian relics, which they have continuously on show throughout the length and breadth of Britain. The prize of this Victorian collection is the suburban system out of Liverpool Street and King's Cross, through north London to Enfield, and Hertford via Tottenham and Edmonton. I have had reason to raise in this House on several occasions the subject of the inadequacy of this system, since it concerns my constituency.
In spite of the effort—the noble effort, I would say—on the part of the staff and of the administration to get the best out of this antiquated system, this Victorian survival permits a service which is still Slow, unpunctual and erratic, and sometimes entails travelling in dirty and ill-lit coaches. Museums are all very well to visit from time to time, but Enfield citizens' idea of fun is not to travel daily in one. In fact, compared to this travelling museum, the Emmet Railway in Battersea Pleasure Gardens is the last word in modern travel. [An HON. MEMBER: "It is not as bad as that."]
There has been considerable investigation into the possibility of electrifying the suburban services on the London

Hertford line and on the suburban system generally. I understand that it had reached the next priority after the electrification of the line to Southend but owing to the curtailment of the capital investment programme, these further electrification schemes have been held up, and that the next priority has been indicated to be the building of a tube connecting the main terminals in London and linking with this suburban system which would be electrified. In view of the high cost of tube construction today I urge upon the Minister to consider first the electrification of this suburban system and to put off the consideration of tube construction until at least this electrification has taken place.
Electrification pays handsomely, as has been shown by the Shenfield electrification, where receipts have gone up some 40 per cent. and passenger journeys by some 48 per cent. Before I leave the local question of this suburban line, I would draw to the attention of the Minister the efforts which have been made for the last 35 years to eliminate the level crossings which this line traverses in passing through Enfield. Unfortunately there is no traffic bridge over the main roads connecting Enfield town with the industrial district of Brimsdown, Ponders End and Enfield Lock. Once the gates are closed, those industrial areas are cut off from all outside contact with the town, and I am sure that the Minister can well understand the delays and loss of production that result therefrom.
In spite of the deficiencies of the railway system before the war which have been inherited by the present nationalised system, and the failure to modernise it and bring it up to date, British Railways during the last three years have achieved remarkable progress in carrying a record volume of traffic and carrying it efficiently and, generally speaking, economically. Despite the great handicaps of shortages of crews and rolling stock, the productivity of British Railways today is at a very high level and, as far as the carriage of freight is concerned, is at the highest level it has ever achieved. The Annual Report contains a very large number of statistics. If they be compared with pre-war operation, there is found in every case to be a very large improvement.
The most convincing yardstick is that of net ton-miles per total engine-hour, which have improved by no less than 29 per cent. Today, that is to say in 1951, the net ton-miles per total engine-hour is 595, which compares with 461 in 1938. There has been an improvement of 29 per cent. in this very fair basis of judging efficiency in the carriage of goods on British Railways. This winter, freight traffic carried by rail created a record in quantity handled and mileage travelled, and so, I understand, did the carriage of passengers.

Mr. Hector Hughes: My hon. Friend claims to be speaking of British Railways in a general way and praising them as being an efficient service for the carriage of freight. Does he not agree that British Railways are defective in that they do not treat this country as a unit for the carriage of freight, the result being that injustices are inflicted upon remote districts? Do these not have to pay larger sums for freight than are paid by larger districts and large consuming centres? Is that not a blot on the system?

Mr. Davies: No, Sir. I do not consider that that is a blot because the question my hon. and learned Friend has raised and which he raised at Question time today is one of very great complexity and one which it would be very difficult to apply to British Railways. It would mean that charges for the carriage of freight for short distances would be at such a high level that it would seriously inconvenience industrial production in this country.
In my view there is a limit to the savings British Railways can make through increased efficiency. They have improved their efficiency very much during the last three years, and all our prophecies regarding nationalisation in this respect have been fully justified. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] Yes, British Railways have reduced their working costs by 2s. in the £, in spite of the great difficulties which confronted them—the rise in costs and in wages and so on.
If all these matters are taken into account, the actual operation costs of British Railways today are 2s. in the £, less than they were before nationalisation; that is to say, that if these economies had not been made and efficiency

increased to this extent, the cost of operation of British Railways today would be some £35 million to £40 million more than it is. Those figures are given in the Annual Report and the hon. Member for Croydon, East (Sir H. Williams), if he reads the Report, will find them there.
Of course, the high cost of travelling, which results from many factors, including the high cost of materials and the provision of better working conditions and fairer wages than were given under private enterprise, is a deterrent.
One might refer to the difficulties people encounter today in taking their holidays by rail. A working man with an average weekly wage finds it very difficult to meet costs of travelling by rail when going away on his annual holiday. If I went into that realm, Mr. Speaker, I am sure you would rule me out of order, so I will not refer to it further. But I think it would be desirable if British Railways were able to introduce some family holiday tickets, some special provision for booking in advance by special trains at a cheaper rate to enable working men's families to travel to holiday resorts by rail. At present a family of four, husband and wife and two children, travelling at half fare from London to Margate would have to pay £3 4s. 6d., or from Bradford to Blackpool, £3 3s. 0d., or from Birmingham to Brighton, £5 2s. Those figures show how difficult it is for a normal family to travel by rail for their holidays.
The financial position of British Railways today can only give us cause for concern, despite the increased efficiency to which I have referred. Factors beyond the control of the Railway Executive are largely responsible for the annual deficits which have faced the British Transport Commission since it started operations. Even the increased income which should now result is likely to be inadequate to meet current expenditure and provide reserves for replacement and renewal of assets at the very high level now current, and at the same time provide a surplus required to build up reserves to meet those replacements. Up to the present the Transport Commission has endeavoured to meet the situation by seeking to meet costs by making higher charges to the public.
This imposes an impossible burden on the user and in my view the solution is


not in this direction. If we chase after higher costs with higher fares we are going on an indefinite journey which has no end because one causes the other; the price of transport goes up and the price of fuel goes up and that sends up the price of transport again. This is not the time for discussion of this problem and if I went into it deeply it would, no doubt, be ruled out of order.
I suggest to the Minister, however, that the time has come when this financial problem which faces the British Transport Commission, owing particularly to the present position of British Railways, should be looked at seriously. A solution would largely be made if it were possible to embark on a large programme of capital investment and if it were possible to make a fairer allocation of capital investment to the railways and arrange for a fairer allocation of materials to enable that programme to be carried out. It would be helpful if the Minister would give some indication of what are the plans of the Ministry in that respect.

Mr. Hector Hughes: I am very much obliged to my hon. Friend for giving way. When I interrupted a moment ago he was good enough to refer to a Question I asked in the House today, but that was not the question about which I am asking now. He is talking of the undue burden the Railway Executive have to bear. Does he not realise that probably the greatest burden they have to bear is the maintenance of the permanent way which, in fact, should be a national charge? [HON. MEMBERS "Speech."] In time of war they are used—

Mr. Speaker: The hon. and learned Member is taking far too long in his interjection.

Mr. Davies: I think that if my hon. and learned Friend is so fortunate as to catch your eye, Mr. Speaker, during this debate, he can put his questions to the Minister, who is in a far better position to answer them than I am.
I was appealing to the Minister to look seriously at the position of British Railways today and to do so objectively and non-politically. I think the difficulties which face British transport can be overcome if politics are kept out. The Labour Government during the last three years endeavoured to keep the

boards, the British Transport Commission and the Executives, free from political interference and political control. In the national interest that must continue. Members of the Government often plead for national unity—and the worst offender in that respect is, of course, the Prime Minister, for to him it seems that national unity merely means agreeing with him. He has not been able to keep politics entirely out of public ownership or out of criticism of administration of public ownership.
I appeal to the Minister, in spite of speeches and promises made during the Election, to see that party politics shall now be kept out of transport in the interests of the industry of this country and the interests of the travelling public and that there is no unnecessary hiving off of the profitable sections of British transport. Let the British Transport Commission and its Executives be left to carry on the job of building a public, efficient, economical system which they have done so much towards creating during the last three years.

7.40 p.m.

Mr. Bernard Braine: I do not propose to follow the hon. Member for Enfield, East (Mr. Ernest Davies), in his interesting speech, except perhaps to say that I sympathise very deeply with him about the condition of the railways in Enfield. It is always a consolation to know that there is somebody worse off than oneself. As one who, together with my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Mr. McAdden), who I hope will be able to speak later in this debate if he should be so fortunate as to catch your eye, Mr. Speaker, has travelled for six years on the line from Southend to Fenchurch Street, I can assure the hon. Member that he is not alone in his suffering.
I wish to devote my remarks to the Bill itself. The Bill proposes that certain additional powers shall be given to the British Transport Commission in respect of works and lands over widely separated parts of the country. In so far as it empowers the Commission to improve the condition of the railways and to increase their efficiency, I have no objection whatever to the Bill, indeed I welcome it. After all, this country gave the railways to the world. We have a proud railway tradition, and there is not one of us in


this House who would not welcome any move designed to make British railways more efficient, or to restore our pride in them and make them once again the envy of the world.
In this Bill, however, the British Transport Commission are seeking powers to carry out certain works in the borough of Barking, which lies between my constituency and London and the metropolitan areas of Essex. In particular, they are seeking in Clause 7 (1, h) powers to lay down two additional railway lines, making a total of four, at an existing level crossing at Ripple Road, Barking. It is on this account that I oppose the Bill. Some hon. Members feel that this is a narrow point, but it does raise an important issue of principle, which seems to me to be appropriate to discuss on Second Reading.
Ripple Road is a classified road. It carries a great deal of local traffic, and the hon. Member for Barking (Mr. Hastings) may be able, if he is fortunate in catching your eye, Mr. Speaker, to support me in this instance since he knows the local conditions even better than I do.

Mr. A. J. Champion: I wonder if the hon. Member would stake a claim for me to catch your eye. Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Braine: I may later in my speech. The hon. Member must take his turn.
This road carries a great deal of local traffic between Barking, now an important industrial centre, Dagenham Dock and Tilbury. The railway is the line from Fenchurch Street through Barking down to Dagenham Dock and Tilbury. It cannot be denied that the existing level crossing is dangerous and causes very serious difficulties indeed for local road traffic.
I have seen this for myself on several occasions. Quite recently a count was taken, and in four periods of one hour each 25 trains passed over the level crossing and the gates were closed against the road 24 times. During that time 276 vehicles were held up and the total time lost to road traffic was 46 minutes, or nearly 20 per cent. If one takes the peak hour, that is from 2 to 3 p.m., 131 vehicles were held up in an hour. The gates were closed nine times, for a total of 22½ minutes in the hour.
That is bad enough, but the situation is likely to worsen for a number of reasons. First, there is a growing industrial area to the east of Barking. Second, in my constituency, still further east, a new town is being built which will ultimately have a population of about 80,000, and a number of other towns are being expanded. This is bound to add to road traffic. In addition, the fact that the British Transport Commission seek powers in this Bill to double the number of tracks at this level crossing is a clear indication that they anticipate that the railway traffic will also increase.
If we relate this provision to one of the Schedules, where I see the purpose of these works is to increase the size of or provide a marshalling yard at Barking, it is clear that it will be goods rather than passenger traffic that will be added to the volume of railway traffic already using that line. Therefore, the interruption to road traffic at the Ripple Road crossing, which is already serious, will be very much greater.
I therefore oppose this Bill because it empowers the British Transport Commission to carry out works which will worsen an already unsatisfactory position without giving any kind of guarantee that remedial action will be taken in the future.

Mr. David Jones: Does the hon. Gentleman not realise that if the existing two lines are increased to four, two trains will be able to pass in each direction at the same time and the number of hold-ups will not be as long?

Mr. Braine: The hon. Gentleman's knowledge of how railways are run is not very great, and what he has said does not follow at all. On the contrary, it is clear that if goods traffic is to use this level crossing it will not necessarily proceed at the same even rate as passenger traffic. The trains will be run at times convenient to the railway and no doubt inconvenient to the road users.
The course which I originally proposed to follow was to put down on the Order Paper a form of instruction to the Committee to which the Bill will be consigned, I hope, after Second Reading. That would not deny the British Transport Commission the right to lay down these additional tracks now, but it would oblige them to take steps to ensure that a bridge


was provided in the future which would obviate the difficulties about which I have been speaking. It is quite wrong for Parliament to give permission to the British Transport Commission to increase the nuisance and dangers of an existing level crossing without exacting some guarantee at the same time that both the nuisance and the danger will eventually be eliminated.
I submit that that is not a narrow point. In 1950, which is the latest year for which I could find any figures, there were 4,080 gated crossings over public roads. There were nearly 23,000 other level crossings. The figure has not materially altered very much in the last 10 or 15 years. I do not think that there is an hon. Member who would not agree that this large number of level crossings constitutes a danger and a nuisance to the general public.
I do not want to exaggerate the danger. It is undeniable that railway travel in this country is still the safest method of travel. It is true that engine drivers—and I have a number in my constituency to whom I have talked on this subject—drive their trains with great skill, and the majority of accidents which occur at level crossings are not caused by engine crews at all, but rather by the crossing gate-keeper or by the road user.
Any engine driver will testify that the existence of level crossings imposes upon him an enormous strain and a great deal of anxiety, which of course is all the greater in times of bad visibility when there is always the chance that the unexpected may occur. It is very revealing to study the annual reports of the train accidents in Great Britain. In 1949, to take one year at random, there were 200 train accidents at level crossings. In 1950 the number increased to 235. In 1949 there were 165 train accidents caused by collision with gates or vehicles at level crossings of which eight had fatal results. In 1950 there were 211 accidents of which 16 had fatal results.
I have quoted these figures because their real significance is that in 1949 14 per cent. of all train accidents occurring in this country took place at level crossings. In 1950 18 per cent. of all train accidents took place at level crossings. That is a very formidable figure indeed. Obviously, if level crossings could eventually be eliminated there would be a

sharp reduction in the number of accidents of all kinds and in the number of fatalities caused on the railways.

Mr. J. A. Sparks: What alternative has the hon. Member in mind? Presumably he does not want to abolish passing traffic?

Mr. Braine: If the hon. Gentleman will read the instruction which I put down on the Order Paper, he will see that I am endeavouring to make out a case for it and, if he will bear with me a little longer, he will see what I propose. In railway legislation for well over a 100 years now it has been an established principle that there shall be no level crossings over public carriage ways unless Parliament itself sees good reason for giving the railway company, or as is now the case, the British Transport Commission, a relief from the general law.
Section 46 of the Railway Clauses (Consolidation) Act, 1845, lays down quite clearly:
If the Line of the Railway cross any Turnpike Road or public Highway, then … either such Road shall be carried over the Railway, or the Railway shall be carried over such Road by means of a bridge ….
It goes on to say:
it shall be lawful"—
in certain circumstances—
for the Company to carry the Railway across any Highway, other than a Public Carriage Road, on the Level.
As a result, of course, railway companies in the past and now the British Transport Commission, have to come to this House whenever they wish to make a new level crossing, or, as in this case, to widen an existing level crossing, and they have to satisfy Parliament that the public safety is properly considered.

Mr. Hector Hughes: Would the hon. Member say at whose expense these roads and bridges should be built? Would it be at the expense of the railway system, in his view, or should it be a public charge?

Mr. Braine: The hon. and learned Member interrupted me at the point where I was about to say that in the 1930's determined efforts were made by the Governments, of those days to tackle this particular problem. The general policy was that where it was necessary in


the case of a road which carried a considerable volume of road traffic to eliminate a level crossing, representations were made to the Minister and grants from the Road Fund were made at the rate of 75 per cent. towards the cost. Between 1933 and 1938, 29 such level crossings were eliminated.
I am not making a party point, because I believe that when the right hon. Member for Lewisham, South (Mr. H. Morrison), was the Minister of Transport in the second Labour Government the same policy obtained. If the hon. and learned Gentleman cares to study them, the volumes of HANSARD in the 1930's simply abound with references to the constant anxiety of Ministers and hon. Members of this House to eliminate this nuisance as rapidly as possible, and certainly to mitigate it. I submit that today, when the volume of road traffic is far greater than it was then, and is infinitely greater than when the Railway Clauses Consolidation Act became law, there is a still greater duty on Parliament to examine the powers which the British Transport Commission are seeking today.
It is true that since the war progress towards eliminating level crossings has gone on. It has been slow, and governed by the economic situation of the country. I make no criticism of that, but the policy has continued. And I say that for the British Transport Commission to slip into a Bill of this kind a proposal which goes against all the accumulated experience of this House over 100 years is something which hon. Members on both sides should not accept.
I do not wish to be unreasonable about this. I quite realise that a bridge at this particular spot is not an economic proposition at the present moment. As a matter of fact, if I were arguing about priorities of bridge building I would refer to Canvey Island, in my constituency, which has the distinction of being an urban district without a railway and with a large and growing population dependent upon the Southend-Fenchurch Street line. I should say that that island should be connected to the mainland by a high-level bridge. But I am not arguing that tonight.
Even if economic stringency did not obtain, I recognise it would not be possible to ask the Committee, to which

this Bill will be consigned if the House gives it a Second Reading, to insert a provision that a bridge will be built sometime in the future; because clearly those people who would object to such a proposition have not had the opportunity of making their objections to it under the appropriate Standing Order.
I do not however think it unreasonable to ask the British Transport Commission to give an undertaking that they will at some future date propose a further Bill under which they will seek powers to build a bridge at this particular point. In former days I believe that the procedure would have been for me to ask the hon. Member who was looking after the Bill on behalf of the promoters for such an assurance. I am not sure what is the procedure now.
Here we have nationalisation, with the Minister who is clearly interested in the fortunes of the British Transport Commission, but who is at the same time the guardian of the wider public interest. Therefore I say to my right hon. Friend that I will not press the instruction I have put down on the Order Paper, if he will give me an assurance that the matter will be attended to in the Select Committee; that the Select Committee will take into account the case I have tried to put to the House, and that the views of this House for well over 100 years on the subject of level crossings will not be flouted, as indeed they are flouted by Clause 7 of the Bill.

8.0 p.m.

Mr. Somerville Hastings: I quite agree with a great deal that was said by the hon. Member for Billericay (Mr. Braine), about the dangers and inconveniences of level crossings, both in general and in particular as regards Ripple Road, Barking. During the last 6¾ years in which I have had the honour to represent Barking in Parliament I have been frequently inconvenienced, perhaps more often than the hon. Member for Billericay, in connection with this level crossing. Particularly is this the case since, just over the level crossing, is the headquarters of the party which I represent in Parliament, and it always seems to happen that, when I want to go to that headquarters, I find myself on the wrong side of the level crossing.

Major D. McCallum: Surely, the hon. Gentleman represents a constituency, not a party?

Mr. Hastings: A constituency, certainly. I am much obliged to the hon. and gallant Gentleman.
Incidentally, as it is proposed that the increased traffic should be mainly goods traffic, it is likely that a good many of those extra trains will be running at night, and that they will, therefore, not inconvenience the public as much as they would otherwise do.
The Corporation of Barking has been in negotiation with the Ministry of Transport for a long time about the marshalling yard and the improvement to Barking Station and the railway services through it, which are part of the scheme. At first, they were inclined to oppose this proposal, but, when it was pointed out to them how much the scheme for the improvement of Barking Station would benefit the public, they were more ready to agree.
Nevertheless, the Borough Council very strongly insisted that they would do their best to impress upon both the Essex County Council and the Ministry of Transport the need for a bridge over this crossing. While feeling very strongly about the need for a bridge, the Barking Borough Council nevertheless felt that the question of priorities came into the picture very forcibly, and they were so impressed with the benefits that were likely to accrue to the travelling public who use Barking Station, that they were agreed that this should be a matter of first priority and that the bridge, though important, might be considered secondary.
May I now say, because this is very relevant, how important these proposed changes are likely to be to the rail traffic in Barking. Barking is an important junction. It is said that it is used more than any other suburban station, although I do not know if that is strictly true. There are eight platforms, and, on the westward side, there is traffic to and from St. Pancras, Fenchurch Street, and, by means of the District Railway, Richmond, Ealing and Wimbledon. On the other side, we find trains passing to and from, in the eastward direction, Shoeburyness via Tilbury in some cases, and via Upminster in others.
The trouble is that trains on the northernmost of the platforms from

St. Pancras—I am sorry to detain the House with these details, but they are really important in explaining the reason which Barking has for urging the acceptance of this Bill—in order to get to the Tilbury line, in which direction there is a good deal of freight traffic, have to cross over five lines of traffic, which very often means delay on both sides of Barking Station and a great waste of passengers' time. Part of this scheme is to provide what is known as a fly-over or viaduct to avoid this.
Another proposal in the scheme is that platforms running in the same direction should be associated so that passengers, instead of having to cross foot bridges in changing platforms, would be able to step from one train to another with much greater ease. Lastly, and of very great importance, is the enlargement of the booking hall, so that the queues that we now find waiting for tickets and the congestion and obstruction to the exits from the station which follow the arrival of a train should be reduced.
The Corporation of Barking is very keen indeed in urging the provision of a bridge over this level crossing, but they feel that the improvements to the railways, in the provision of this fly-over and better arrangement of platforms, together with the improvements of the booking hall, would almost certainly result in better time keeping of the trains, and might allow the Railway Executive to provide more trains, particularly at the rush hours.
After weighing up the matter very carefully indeed, the Corporation of Barking wish that this Bill may be given a Second Reading today, so that the improvement of the station may be proceeded with forthwith, and, at the same time, the matter of the bridge may be given priority as soon as conditions in the country make that possible.

8.8 p.m.

Sir Herbert Williams: I shall not keep the House very long, because I realise that a large number of hon. Members wish to speak. Nor shall I comment on the lyrical phrases used in relation to the present system by the hon. Member for Enfield, East (Mr. Ernest Davies), who opened the debate. I have not had the hon. Gentleman's experience. I do not travel a great deal on main line trains, because I drive a great deal and


I walk a great deal, but I would say that there is a very changed attitude on the part of the railwaymen.
I remember going to Euston on the very day on which the railways were nationalised, and the man who punched my ticket was full of joy and told me how marvellous things were going to be and what they were going to do. That spirit has gone. [HON. MEMBERS: "Nonsense."] Oh, yes, it has completely gone, except amongst the professionals, if I may so call them. I mean the professional advocates of nationalisation who have retired from railway working.
However, there are one or two minor points to which I should like to refer. The first is a bit of praise. I am glad that they have restored some soap in the lavatories. The trains are so filthy that it was much more necessary than it was during pre-war conditions, and we do not need a great range of capital expenditure in order to have the coaches kept a little cleaner. I do not travel a great deal, but when I do I am not unobservant. Those who deny that railway coaches today are much dirtier than they were in pre-war days are denying the obvious. We can see them any day, dirty inside and dirty outside, and everybody knows it. [Interruption.] I always observe that if I say something that is true and which the other side do not like, they make a variety of noises.
When I do travel, I have a meal on the train, and, like our nationalised restaurants here, the restaurant car service is run at a loss. It is very interesting to read the account of what they lose on meals on the trains. At least in our restaurant here, we are given some information as to what we are likely to get. I think it is monstrous that the railways are the only caterers in this country who do not provide a menu. I am sure that if the Hotels Executive were to be told that they would be fired unless menus were provided, the menus would be restored. It is amazing what one will do if one is told to do it.
We are rather restricted tonight in view of Mr. Speaker's Ruling, but I wonder, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, whether I may pursue the subject matter of a letter I received tonight. It came, most appropriately, from Waverley Road and was

written by a man with rather a City name, Mr. Bradbury. As I say, I only received the letter this afternoon, and it seemed most appropriate. I raised the point involved in it when we had the Ruling by Mr. Speaker at the beginning of the debate. The letter says:
I would like to take this opportunity of bringing to your notice the widespread criticism of the increase in fares by the London Transport Executive.
Mr. Speaker said that we could not raise that issue on the ground that the increased fares were a result of the decision of the tribunal. I raised that very point, and Mr. Speaker said, more or less, that we must see how we got on. If I read the rest of the letter, I think it will show the point is in order:
Although the Tribunal awarded an increase of 20 per cent., the London Transport Executive"—
and remember there are many references to them in this Bill under the old title—
by shortening hundreds of fare stages, are making the increase one of 60 per cent. and 100 per cent.
In other words, they are departing from the Tribunal's decision. That is the implication. Judging from what we read in the Press, they are departing from the principle laid down by the Tribunal, and I shall be glad if, when replying, the Parliamentary Secretary will tell me and the House generally whether this is true. One wonders whether the Tribunal were aware of this intention.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Mr. Hopkin Morris): I think the first part of the letter is clearly out of order under Mr. Speaker's Ruling about the rates. The second part is out of order under the Ruling that the powers given to the London Transport Executive under this Bill are very limited.

Sir H. Williams: On that point, in the Seventh Schedule, I think it is, there is a reference to the London Passenger Transport Act, 1935, and to the London Passenger Transport Act, 1938. The inheritor of the London Passenger Transport Board is, of course, the present London Transport Executive, so these very powers bind the body we now call the London Transport Executive.
Their alleged behaviour in misinterpreting the decision of the Tribunal is the point I wish to put before the House and the Minister. Therefore, may I


finish reading the letter—I will not comment on it—because it puts forward the allegation that there has been an abuse of the decision of the Tribunal. If there has been such an abuse by the body seeking these powers, then clearly it seems to me that I am not entirely out of order.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: If the hon. Member finishes reading the letter somebody else will want to comment on it, and the whole thing will be out of order.

Sir H. Williams: I am sorry you cannot allow me to pursue the matter further, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, and of course I bow to your Ruling, but I have at least had the satisfaction of making my point in substance.

8.16 p.m.

Mr. Ernest Popplewell: In giving general support to this Bill, I ask the Minister to look very carefully at something that is having a very great effect on the railways today. At the present moment, the Railway Executive are seeing some of the results of their very forthright policy in making good the lack of maintenance that took place during the war and which was a continuation of what happened in pre-war years.
Today they are faced with the shocking position that, although they are fiercely attacked from many sides as being an inefficient body—an attack that is entirely unjustified—when they attempt to build up even greater efficiency than they have already achieved, they are unable to do so because the necessary raw materials are not available to them.
I refer to the very great difficulty which the Railway Executive are experiencing at the moment in obtaining sufficient steel to keep the industry going. In addition to the lack of maintenance with which the British Transport Commission were confronted when they took over, they are now faced with this shortage of steel and the possibility of further cuts. In submitting their proposals for a steel allocation, they only asked for what they actually required. They did not ask for more than they really needed, on the assumption that the quantity would be cut, with the result that they would receive more or less what they required. I ask the Minister to put the case of the Executive to his right hon. Friend the Minister of Supply and

to defend and support their plea for more steel.
Let us look at the difficulties which the Railway Executive have had to face. Owing to the lack of rolling stock, they had to withdraw some 9,000 wagons from France after all the wear and tear that had taken place in their operation in that country. They have also had to bring into use some 300 condemned passenger coaches. When hon. Members complain about the filthy coaches on the railways today, they should take note of the date when those coaches were built. Many of them have already been condemned as unfit for further service, but in order to meet traffic needs they are having to be brought back. Consequently, it requires a tremendous lot of upkeep to keep them clean, and short of a big capital development in the installation of modern cleaning equipment, as distinct altogether from the brush and the pail of water, the railways are at a very great disadvantage in facing that obligation.
They are also facing a big difficulty in regard to the permanent way. There are still far too many speed restrictions in operation. The number of speed restrictions which have been lifted during the past few weeks speaks well for the efficiency of the Railway Executive and for the skill of the railway engineers. Another big difficulty confronting them is that of the out-of-date locomotive on which they are having to depend in order to keep the traffic going. Locomotive engineers, drivers and firemen are carrying out a stupendous task in keeping to the margins and schedule.
The 1951 programme for the building of locomotives had to go by the board. What can we visualise for 1952 with the further cuts in steel already promised, plus a tremendous increase in price? All these things are adding to the difficulties which the Railway Executive are having to face. Do no let us bring too much politics into criticism of the railway system, which is really a very efficient undertaking. It can be made much more efficient, of course.
There are one or two other important factors which we must bear in mind. The railway industry has been looked upon as the Cinderella of the industries for far too long and railwaymen, for far too long, have been asked to accept smaller wages


than the majority of other workers because, they were told, their employment was guaranteed. That day is past, and incentives to keep men in the railway industry must now be carefully thought out. Today we have the ridiculous spectacle of requests being made to enlarge the railway transport system while at the same time there is a redundancy of labour on the locomotive and engineering side owing to lack of steel. We know of the thousands of vacancies to which the Minister referred at Question time today.
If we want efficiency and if the railways are to be a national asset in the best interests of the nation, it is necessary that the Minister should plan to give to the railway authorities the material they need to organise the industry in the way they desire. I should like to quote an example of the difficulty which the railway authorities meet in ensuring that efficiency. In the area where I have spent the greater part of my railway working life, the railway engineers have instituted a scheme of colour signalling. They have done away with the signalling boxes, involving some 33 men in a very busy railway yard at York station. The amount of traffic which passes through that yard now as a result of colour signalling is amazing, and the switch-over was carried out without any interference with traffic.
If we are to have greater efficiency on the railways, it is necessary that those in charge should have the power to develop that system to the degree they visualise, and also the power to introduce greater electrification of the lines. It is no use our complaining of inefficiency if we do not give the railway engineers the means to achieve efficiency. It is no use our complaining about freight charges and passenger fares if the railway engineers are not given the opportunity to make the industry as efficient as they wish it to be. The Railway Executive are very efficient, but they can be made even more efficient.
There is also need throughout the railway industry, from the British Transport Commission down, to appreciate fully the importance of taking the workers' representatives into consultation at all stages in order to secure the best results. I am afraid that in discussions at many local

centres supervisors and others responsible for conducting affairs are not pursuing that policy to the degree they should do.
There is great fear among the workers that insufficient confidence is placed in them. They want greater opportunities for meeting the management side for a reasonable discussion rather than that they should be asked to put forward their point of view and then be informed that the management will give further consideration to the matter. It would be very useful if the management side gave the men chapter and verse for decisions not to go forward with certain constructive schemes. I hope the Minister will show more energy and drive in seeing that the terms of the Act and the wishes of the British Transport Commission in this respect are put into more general operation.
There is an overwhelming case for increased capital expenditure on the railways even in these very difficult days. In pre-war days the system was so deplorable that, although it was known that capital development was needed, the railways could not raise the cash on the market and they had to ask the Government for loans before development could take place. That indicates the neglect of the railway system in pre-war years.
If we are to have the maximum effort from the railways and if the railways are to be a really useful national unit playing a big part in our national life, it is up to the Minister to ensure the right conditions. I hope that whoever replies to this debate will give an assurance that the Minister will see to it that he secures from the Minister of Supply the steel and raw materials required by this essential undertaking.

8.27 p.m.

Mr. Geoffrey Wilson: I was very interested in the arguments of the hon. Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, West (Mr. Popplewell) and particularly in his plea that we should not regard the railways as the Cinderella of industry. I entirely agree with that, but I did not quite follow him when he laid such stress on the fact that capital development had been restricted.
There is a curious paragraph in the Third Annual Report of the British


Transport Commission which states, on page 19:
As stated in the Second Annual Report, arrangements have been made to exclude the cost of permanent way repairs from the figures of 'investment'. After these adjustments, the 'Economic Survey' for 1950 set out the expected rate of expenditure in the railway programme (including the Railway Executive railways and the London Transport Executive railways and bus garages) for the year as £81 millions, comprising £79 millions for railways and £2 millions for London Transport garages. The actual expenditure was just under £68 millions.
That does not seem to agree with the argument the hon. Member put forward.

Mr. Popplewell: I think the hon. Member rather misses my point. He is only proving by his observations the further point I made, that the railways in times past did not have capital development to the degree they should have had and are lagging behind tremendously in consequence, and that even now, with that lag, their need of capital improvement is still not being met.

Mr. Wilson: If by "times past" the hon. Member means the time of the last Government, I see the point of his argument, because the date of this Report is December, 1950.

Mr. Champion: Would the hon. Gentleman also read the explanation why it was not met, because that will make it quite clear that the reasons were such as would, I should think, be acceptable to this House.

Mr. Wilson: The Report goes on:
The under-spending of the allocation is attributable mainly to the following factors: (i) Investment is not susceptible of control within fine degrees, and the effect of imposing such drastic restrictions at short notice was to produce reductions in excess of what was desired. (ii) Deliveries of rolling stock by contractors to both the Railway and London Transport Executives fell seriously behind; (iii) Owing to a formidable increase in estimated costs it was decided to defer the extension of the Bakerloo Tube.
Then it passes to some other subject.
I mention that point incidentally, because I really want to refer to a concluding remark which was made by the Member for Enfield, East (Mr. Ernest Davies). Just before he sat down, he referred to the hiving off of the most profitable part of the industry. He did not explain what he meant by that, but it sounded reminiscent of the argument we

have heard so often from hon. Members opposite who seem to take much too despondent a view about the future of British Railways. They always seem to regard British Railways as being inevitably bound up with and dependent upon the road services.
I have never believed that road competition was the sole or, indeed, the main reason why railways have declined in this country. I have never believed, in the peculiar geographical and political conditions of this country, that roads were a practical alternative to railways—or, indeed, that it was not possible to develop them both.
Here we are, with 50 million people in a small island, and already our road density of traffic is the highest in the world. Per thousand miles of road, we have in this country 14,874 vehicles, while even the United States of America have only 12,416 vehicles, and every other country in the world has fewer than 5,000 vehicles, per thousand miles of road. So any large increase in road traffic in this country would mean a perpetual traffic jam on existing roads.
The railway industry and British Railways need not fear that all their traffic is going on to the roads. It certainly will not in existing conditions; nor is it possible, in any time that we can contemplate, so to develop our roads that they could take all the traffic that could be taken, because the cost of compensation would be so large. Here we are, in a heavily built-up country, with a very high cost of agricultural land which would make the necessary motor ways, clover-leaf crossings, roundabouts and so on, quite prohibitive if we did intend to take all the traffic that was necessary.

Mr. Sparks: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it would be economic folly to divorce the present road haulage system from the British Road Transport Commission and revert to private enterprise?

Mr. Wilson: Not at all. I think that both could exist quite well on their own, for the reason that the danger to the railways from road traffic is not as great as some people believe.
I think that the chief disincentives to traders and the travelling public going by rail are nothing fundamental to rail transport. I think they may be classified under three headings. First, there are the


difficulties at terminal points and transfer points en route, such as dirty and dilapidated stations which depress passengers; delays in transit, rough handling and pilferage of goods, which are not fundamental to rail traffic but are matters which irritate both passengers and traders and which tend to make them non-railway-minded.
Secondly, I believe that they are dissuaded from travelling by rail or sending their goods by rail by a whole host of obsolete and antiquated conditions about the carriage of goods—the endless conditions which are, and have been for years, plastered all over the railways in this country, owing to statutory provisions which have applied to the railways for more than 100 years.
Thirdly, a question which we cannot discuss in the debate—the question of charges, which have become excessive in recent years in comparison with the services rendered. All these three groups of disincentives could be overcome by imaginative management, although I agree with hon. Members opposite to some extent when they say it is necessary to have some additional capital development, and that the railways have been starved of capital since the war.
The fundamental problems are not connected with competition from the roads at all. It would be quite impossible for the road sections of the industry to support the railways, because they have not the capital; there is only £70 million worth of capital in the Road Haulage Executive, as against £1,180 million in the British Transport Commission. The Road Haulage Executive have control of only between 5 per cent. and 6 per cent. of the vehicles on the roads and have about 40,000 vehicles out of a total of 850,000, so that the argument sometimes put forward is, in my submission, beside the point.
This is a Bill which provides for some capital development and the improvements in it should be welcomed. They are small and limited in compass, which is perhaps inevitable in the present difficult times; but in so far as they are improvements, I hope the House will welcome the Bill.

8.37 p.m.

Mr. David Jones: The hon. Member for Truro (Mr. G. Wilson) answered his first criticism very well when he read the remainder of the paragraph, which was a clear indication why the capital development for that year had not taken place. He went on to criticise the amount by which railway rates have increased. Had he made a comparison between the increase in general wholesale prices of 200 per cent. and the increase of 100 per cent. in railway charges, he would have been following the excellent precedent which he set when he made his first point.
The hon. Member for Billericay (Mr. Braine), whom I regret is not in his place, suggested that I knew very little about railways. All I can say is this: that the railway company with which the hon. Member for Truro was employed before he came to the House gave me three awards of merit for railway operation over a period of 30 years. If that does not indicate some small knowledge of railways, perhaps the hon. Member will tell me what does.

Mr. David Renton: Perhaps, with his long experience of railways, the hon. Member will do better next time he interrupts than he did when he interrupted my hon. Friend.

Mr. Jones: The hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Renton) should realise that, where there are four running lines, one can run two trains at the same time in each direction instead of one. Obviously, the measure of delay which occurs at railway crossings is thereby minimised.

Mr. Renton: rose—

Mr. Jones: I must get on. Looking at the Front Bench opposite tonight reminds one of the old tag—poachers turned game-keepers. I hope that the contributions made to the debate from this side of the House will be much more helpful to the British Transport Commission than were the contributions which some of the right hon. Gentleman's friends made when they sat on this side of the House.
My hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, East (Mr. Ernest Davies), in opening the debate, argued the case that the railways had been denied capital for development. I think it was the noble


Lord the Member for Dorset, South (Viscount Hinchingbrooke), speaking in the House on 31st July, 1951, who drew attention to the fact that in 1950 the amount of capital expenditure allowed to the railways represented roughly 6 per cent. of the total capital liabilities of the industry, and he compared that figure with 17 per cent. for the electricity industry, 14 per cent. for the gas industry. and 10 per cent. for the coal industry.
At Question time today I put a number of Questions to the Minister of Transport, asking about the allocation of raw materials, and I hope he is going to be much more forthcoming than merely being interested in the fact that there is a shortage of steel for railway development. I hope he is going to be more successful with his right hon. Friends in this Government than was my right hon. Friend the Member for East Ham, South (Mr. Barnes) with the late Government, when he was Minister of Transport, in getting all the steel necessary so that this industry can be brought to the highest point of efficiency.
The general effect of this limitation of steel on the railway industry is twofold: first, it does affect the general efficiency of the railways through lack of proper maintenance, leading to the possibility of breakdown in some essential parts of the system, and secondly it does make it impossible for the railway industry fully to use the plant and equipment of the railway workshops, and, as a consequence, creates a redundancy of skilled craftsmen who, over a long period of years, have become highly efficient in the transport industry.
In the 1948 Report of the British Transport Commission there are references to their inability to obtain allocations and deliveries commensurate with their requirements in order to bring this industry up to the highest point of efficiency. It may be argued that rearmament and defence purposes must come first, but I should like to assert that all the defence provisions possible would be of no avail if the transport arteries broke down as a consequence of the shortage of raw materials to make them efficient.
They carried a burden during the last war to an extent which was appreciated by very few people. The White Paper, Cmd. 7268 of 1948, stated that, at that

time, there were some 12,000, or 20 per cent., of the coaching stock of the railway system that were over 35 years old. Sir William Wood, of the B.T.C., and formerly Vice-President of the L.M.S., stated that, even at the end of 1952, the railways would still have some 3,250 less coaches than they had in 1938. As to goods wagons, the same White Paper stated that in 1947 some 350,000, or 29 per cent. of the total wagon stock, were more than 35 years old. There were some 200,000 at that time awaiting repair. Between 1948 and the end of 1950 nearly 224,000 of those vehicles were withdrawn from use, but that leaves at the present moment some 127,000 railway wagons which are required to be used every day nearly 40 years of age.
What industry can maintain a high standard of efficiency with handling equipment of that kind? With regard to locomotives, 8,000, or nearly 40 per cent. of the total locomotive stock, were over the normal age in 1948. Withdrawals by the end of 1950 were about 2,100, leaving 5,800 old veterans still trying to do their best to haul trains along the railways of this country. Is it any wonder that trains from Southend to Fenchurch Street sometimes break down, when there are over 5,000 railway engines well past the retiring age that are still having to be used because the necessary raw materials cannot be obtained to build more locomotives?
The same story is told in relation to the renewal of the permanent way. In 1948 the Railway Executive estimated that they would require at least 300,000 tons of steel rails per year in order to maintain the rate of renewal. They have never been able to reach this figure in one single year. In addition to all this, all the bridges, tunnels and viaducts, some of them approaching 100 years of age, have to be renewed.
No wonder the British Transport Commission had this to say in their 1950 Report:
Among other remedies for declining profitability, the possibility of effecting major improvements in efficiency comes first. But it depends largely on long-term measures such as re-equipment and re-organisation on modern lines. Electrification in suitable circumstances is one example. Such projects are practicable only if the capital resources are available, and as things are turning out the public transport system may count itself fortunate if


the ration of capital expenditure allowed to it suffices to patch up and maintain the existing apparatus.
I do not propose to say a word tonight about modernisation and electrification. It will be sufficient for the moment if the railways are given sufficient steel to provide full-time employment for all the skilled workers whom they are now having to turn on one side because of shortage of materials.
At Derby Works, at Eastleigh, Shilton, Faverdale, Darlington and other places there are men who have spent many years, many of them all their lives, in building those gleaming monsters that travel, in spite of the criticism of hon. Members opposite, with a very high degree of safety up and down the country, and at speeds that compare with those in most countries of the world. They are now finding themselves turned on to the roads because the Railway Executive, who want to employ these people, are unable to get the raw materials. It will be no use the Minister saying that he is interested in and sympathetic towards these projects when he finds that, because of this inability to employ these people and find this material, this very vital artery of our country's economic life is breaking down.
I therefore urge the Minister to use all the pressure he can upon his colleagues in the Cabinet to make quite sure that much more steel is allocated to the railways in order that they may become an efficient instrument of our economic life.

8.47 p.m.

Mr. Stephen McAdden: I am grateful for the opportunity of addressing a few words to the House this evening upon the subject of the Railway Executive, because I think that, if one leaves party political points aside, there is a fairly general measure of agreement that there is something wrong with the Railway Executive and its administration, and a fairly general agreement about the steps which should be taken to put it right.
I think I am right in saying—hon. Gentlemen opposite who have intimate connections with the railway trade unions concerned will correct me if I am wrong—that both the unions and the travelling public, and even, I hope, the Executive themselves, realise and understand that it

is no solution of the problems with which they are faced continually to advance fares time after time. They know that that is not the real solution to the problem, and as they realise that, it is not necessary for me to pursue that subject, even if I were permitted to do so, except to say that I hope some steps of a realistic nature will be taken by the Railway Executive to try to do something to improve the administration of the railways.
It is true to say—and, indeed, tributes to its truth have been paid from both sides this evening—that the people of this country are to be congratulated, in the main, upon the high quality of the operating staff of the railways. I say that, not merely because I have a number of them in my constituency. However, it would be quite untrue, and people would be straining very hard in trying to make others believe what was not true, to attempt to suggest that every person employed by the Railway Executive is at present engaged in doing a useful and necessary job, because they are not.
It seems to me that a great deal of help would be given in solving some of the problems which confront the Railway Executive if it were possible for a more realistic attitude to be adopted by some of those employed by the Railway Executive, and if a greater influence could be brought to bear by the unions concerned.

Mr. Sparks: Does the hon. Gentleman not realise that the number of railway staff at present employed is about 35,000 fewer than 18 months ago, despite the fact that traffic has increased substantially? That does not quite prove his point.

Mr. McAdden: I am prepared to accept that the staff may be less, but that does not alter the fact that there is a large number of people who could be more usefully employed on the railways than at the present time. The hon. Gentleman, from his interest in the industry, does not need me to tell him that steps have been taken, even with the support and active encouragement of the unions, to try to have more efficient utilisation of the staff of porters at the London main line termini, which has not met with much response, and there is undoubtedly a waste of labour in that direction, as I think he will agree.
It seems to me that if we are to have that greater efficiency which we all desire


there has to be a greater amount of co-operation from all engaged in the railway service. I think that it is a mistake, as seems to be suggested from one or two observations that have been made—I do not think I can go further than that; nothing very bitter has been said—to think that anyone in this House wants to see the British Railways inefficient. That is not the genuine desire of anyone.
No matter what our political opinions are, all of us are anxious that the British transport service should be efficiently and economically run. As it has been decided that it shall be run as a nationalised concern, it is in the interests of all to see that it is an efficient nationalised concern, and I hope that we shall, therefore, see that due regard is paid, as urged by hon. Members opposite as well as by hon. Members on this side, to the definite needs of the industry, so that it can keep itself up-to-date so far as possible within the limits of the capital investment programme, and see that materials are forthcoming to provide an efficient railway service for this country.
One of the major items of improvement of the railway service affects my own constituency, because I believe that I am correct in saying that the previous Minister of Transport promised that the next big job to be undertaken by the Railway Executive was the electrification of the Fenchurch Street—Southend railway line. I hope that the present Minister will be able to tell us this evening that he has not forgotten that that was the intention of his predecessor, and that he will be able to fortify me in the hope that this matter will go forward. I am glad to see that he has sitting next to him on the Treasury Bench one who, from a long and active association with Southend, will be able to keep him alive to the real necessity for an improved service in that direction.
The hon. Member for Enfield, East (Mr. Ernest Davies), who opened this discussion, claimed that the railway line which served his constituency was one of the worst examples of Victorianism. I do not want to enter into competition with him, but as a regular daily traveller on the Fenchurch Street—Southend Line, I can say that it leaves much to be desired so far as clean carriages and other general cleanliness and locomotive power are concerned.
The hon. Member for The Hartlepools (Mr. D. Jones) made some reference to the fact that the engines on this line broke down fairly regularly, and that is, of course, true. I think that I am entitled to criticise the administration of the Railway Executive in not seeing that we have more effective utilisation of the locomotive power that already exists. There is a shortage on that line of Class IV locomotives, although there is no general shortage of Class IV locomotives throughout the country, and they are still being manufactured. Some have been in store for a considerable time. It seems to me that when we have a nationalised organisation responsible for the operation of our railways, it should be a comparatively simple job to take good Class IV engines out of store and place them on the railway lines where they are most needed. If they did that they would have a more efficient railway service and a more satisfied travelling public and the locomotive staff of the railways in that section of line would be able to take more pride in their engines than they can in the decrepit-looking wrecks which some of them have to operate at present.

Mr. Sparks: Does not the hon. Member agree that electrification would be far superior to the alternative about which he is now speaking?

Mr. McAdden: Certainly it would, but we have heard the tale about electrification before, for it has been going on for a long while. While we are anxious that there should be electrification, until it arrives we are surely entitled to argue that, if the facilities exist for improving the rolling stock and the locomotives without detriment to any other part of the country, those preliminary and intermediate steps should be taken. There is nothing unreasonable in that. I should be the last to suggest that any delay should occur in the plan for electrification, which is a very necessary and desirable step, and it is also a profitable step, as has been shown by the experience of the Liverpool Street—Shenfield line.

Mr. Champion: Does not the hon. Member agree that the section of line in which he is particularly interested ought to have its share of the 29 per cent. of locomotives which are badly out of date and ought not to have all new ones while some of the other lines have all the old ones?

Mr. McAdden: The hon. Member will realise that there is an operating point in this. Not every type of engine is suitable for operation on that section of line. It happens that Class III and Class IV engines are about the only suitable ones for the line, and the Class III engine is not as suitable as the Class IV engine. Class IV engines of good quality are in existence and are in store, and it is wrong "that we should have to put up with inferior types of engines.
Hon. Members must be well aware of the difficulties which my constituents suffer, and, while they are prepared to give me their sympathy, I am sure they will not be prepared to give me much more of the time of the House, for that might mean that they would be debarred from bringing other important points to the attention of the Minister.
Before resuming my seat, I should like to say that the hon. Member for The Hartlepools was a little unfair to the former Minister of Transport, whom he served as a Parliamentary Private Secretary, when he said that he hoped that the present Minister would do much better with steel than the former Minister did. I am glad he has such confidence in the present Minister, but the steel position today is admittedly—it is not a question of political discussion or argument—very much more acute than it has been in the last six years.
If the Minister does nearly as well as his predecessor did, he will have achieved a remarkable success. In these difficult times it is asking too much to expect that he will be able to achieve the same figure. Whatever figure he achieves, I am sure it is necessary for him to urge with the greatest possible vigour the claims of this industry to have the fairest possible treatment, because, unless we have an efficient transport system, the evils of an inefficient one will be reflected in rising costs, rising fares and a deterioration in the standard of living of our people.

8.59 p.m.

Mr. William Ross: There was a rather familiar pattern in the speech of the hon. Member for Southend, East (Mr. McAdden), in what he said about the lack of cleanliness on the railways and the lack of modem locomotives. If he would only follow that with a criticism of the old railway

companies, who allowed the railways to become so decrepit, and urge upon the Government the need, even in the present circumstances, for a greater amount of capital investment for replacement, there would be more logic in his utterances. Also, the hon. Member ought not to try to hog all the available up-to-date locomotives for his own section of line.
If good will alone were needed to give us an efficient transport system in this country, this House could certainly provide the good will. But more than good will is needed. We need urgently to get on with the task which was left, belatedly, after nationalisation, of completely overhauling the railway system of this country. If ever anybody had a bad bargain, it was the State when it took over the railways of this country.

Mr. McAdden: You fixed the terms.

Mr. Ross: I am not a railwayman, but I have had sufficient experience to know that the railways were in a bad state. As to my experience, I remember getting on a train in a station in Ayrshire. The driver was my father. The fireman was an uncle of mine. In order to see that everything was right, I looked down at the guard, who was my grandfather. I have had a great experience of railway conditions in the past, and I represent the railway centre of Kilmarnock.
We need a greater degree of capital investment than we have at the present time. It is inevitable that our railway system, like others, should be bogged down in a financial crisis, but what I object to is that, since the return of the present Government, there has been some reaching out towards the same old cure of economy, which must come out of the standard of living of the men and out of the condition of the railway service itself. We have had experience of that in Scotland, in the cutting down of services to the Clyde coast piers, to take one example alone. The Minister of Transport should urge on the Railway Executive that one way of economising would be to have a little less blundering and meandering in the way they do things in Scotland, and to save on the number of public relations officers who have to go round explaining what the Railway Executive really mean.
I would remind the Minister of the trouble which he is running into in extending the policy of centralisation of


locomotive repair shops in Scotland. Some hon. Members may think that centralisation is being sprung upon us, but we have had all these things before, as we know if we delve into the days of the Glasgow-South-Western Railway and see how it developed into the L.M.S. It is to prevent the errors of the past being repeated that I make this plea to the Minister that it is his job and his responsibility to look after the proper running of the transport system and to take particular action.
In Kilmarnock we have a railway locomotive repair shop which has been doing that kind of work for 100 years. Now the Executive have tried to effect a closure in order to transfer the work to St. Rollox, in Glasgow. The existing agreements with the trade unions do not allow that high-handed action, which has caused a considerable amount of trouble on the spot. The men in Inverurie feel that they are going to be next. There has been a failure to have proper consultation at the right time. This is a matter of policy throughout the whole of railway working, and it ought to be attended to.

Mr. Maclay: The hon. Member seems to be implying that this is a fault of the present Government, but he is really criticising the 1947 Act.

Mr. Ross: I am not criticising the 1947 Act at all. The Minister cannot wriggle out of his responsibility. This announcement was made to the men in January of this year, not by the Minister but by the people who are under him.

Mr. Maclay: Under the 1947 Act. Let us get this absolutely clear. The hon. Member is making a first-rate attack on the 1947 Act.

Mr. Ross: I am not making a first-rate attack. The Minister is still responsible for administering that Act and for policy, and he can give directions regarding policy. The plea is made that on economy the matter can be dealt with in St. Rollox, but can it? What have we in the south-western area? Kilmarnock is a railway centre. Two miles away there is a locomotive depot at Hurlford, 10 miles away there is one at Ayr and there are depots at Ardrossan, Dumfries and Stranraer. Between 300 and 400

locomotives are employed. Now when we want locomotives back on the road as quickly as possible, they will all have to go to Glasgow and back for repair. It means that instead of being in the workshop three days for repair, they will be there for nine days at least, and many of these locomotives are still of the 1900 class, which means that they are constantly requiring attention.
Skilled labour is there in Kilmarnock and I say that it is folly and not real economy to transfer this work to St. Rollox. This is a matter which should be looked at with urgency, not only from the point of view of Kilmarnock, but of other areas. The situation is really serious. I have seen telegrams from the Inverurie men saying that they are prepared to join the Kilmarnock men in striking. The feelings of these men have been completely poisoned by what has been going on, and how it has been handled. It is not merely a Labour Member of Parliament complaining. Last week in Glasgow we had a delegation to the regional officer from Kilmarnock town council, which is a Moderate town council on this matter. They were far from satisfied with what happened there.
We cannot afford to lose these skilled men—there are about 150—and they will not transfer to Glasgow under present circumstances. An attempt of this nature was made after the First World War and Kilmarnock was run down, but when the Second World War came defence needs demanded that Kilmarnock should be built up again. Here we are re-arming and looking at the defence requirements of the transport system as much as the defence needs of the Army, Navy and Air Force, and it seems ludicrous to concentrate everything in an industrial section like Glasgow rather than to disperse in these other areas.
For real economy and defence I think this workshop in Kilmarnock must be kept on. I am sure the Minister is not deaf to the plea; I sincerely hope not. We must give him his due; he was pretty good over the question of the aye Coast piers. I sincerely hope that he will pay attention to this matter. From the point of view of efficiency of the railways and the needs of the country, I feel that this depot must be kept on.

9.9 p.m.

Mr. Peter Smithers: Hon. Members who have spoken before me will forgive me if I do not follow them in their argument as I have a local constituency matter which is of great urgency, for which I shall need all the time at my disposal. In the Winchester constituency there is the Borough of Eastleigh and in it is one of the most important centres of locomotive carriage and wagon manufacture in the country. I want to ask the Minister to consider carefully the position arising as a result of the policy being followed with regard to renewal of passenger rolling stock on the British Railways.
I understand that a decision has been arrived at to suspend completely the building of passenger rolling stock for the 1952 programme. That applies, of course, to many places as well as Eastleigh, and it may be that it is a justifiable decision; I do not know. I believe it is, strictly speaking, a decision not of the Railway Executive but of the Transport Commission. But I ask the Minister to discuss in detail with the Railway Executive or the Transport Commission, whichever may be the appropriate body, the local situation now arising at Eastleigh.
A 100 per cent. cut in the programme will mean a very serious local position for the following reasons. First, the Eastleigh works are concerned almost entirely with building and not with repairs. That means, therefore, that, unlike a lot of other railway centres, they have no repairs on which to fall back when building stops. The second reason this cut will cause great hardship in Eastleigh is that it is entirely a railway town. Not very long ago there was no town there. The works of the Southern Railway or, as it was then, the London and South-Western, were moved from Nine Elms to Eastleigh, which was built up round this great industry.
I am told on the highest authority that the result of these cuts by the Transport Commission will be that one man in three will be redundant. Furthermore, the position is much more serious than that figure alone would suggest; because there will be no cuts in wagon building, I understand, with the result that the cut will fall wholly on the carriage side of the works. In certain trades, therefore, which are mainly—some exclusively—concerned with carriage building,

redundancies will rise as high as 80 per cent. That will reach down to men who have been 20 years with the railways under both private and public ownership.
It will mean the loss of the services of highly skilled, very specialised craftsmen. I need not tell the Minister of the hardship involved. It is causing great local anxiety. I have been approached by all the unions concerned and by the Eastleigh corporation. But I should like the Minister to consider the question of policy. Surely it cannot be right to disband a team of men whose services we are bound to need in the course of the next two or three years. It cannot be that there will suddenly be no more need of passenger rolling stock. Indeed, the need is great at this moment. Coaches are being kept on the rails which ought long ago to have been condemned. In the course of two or three years the British Executive will certainly have to go searching for these men again and to re-assemble them.
On the human side, the attitude of the unions is wholly reasonable. They realise that steel is extremely scarce. They realise that there are many difficulties in the way of the Transport Commission. They hope, however—and I voice their hope here—that the Minister will use every means of trying to ameliorate the serious situation that has arisen. I believe it might be possible, for example, for arms work to be undertaken in those works. It was done there during the war. I hope that suggestion may be looked at. I hope that the Minister will ask the railways to consider sending repair work to Eastleigh in order to alleviate the position.
Above all, I hope that the Minister will consider the question of a fresh supply of steel. It is surely one of the most undesirable results of too much centralisation that a decision taken to cut the carriage-building programme by 100 per cent. all over the country, which may well be tolerable in places where there is a wide diversity of work, should fall extremely hardly on the special circumstances of Eastleigh, which are, I am sure, much worse than those of any other railway centre in the country. It surely is a bad result of centralisation that we should have to apply the rule which has been worked out for the whole country to every place regardless of local circumstances.
I intervene, therefore, to express the hope that the Minister will take up this matter urgently. I believe that 527 men are under notice to leave the carriage works between this week and July, and I hope the Minister will leave no resort untried in his attempt to retain the services of these valuable and skilled men in the organisation where they properly belong, and where they can do valuable national service.

9.16 p.m.

Mr. Alfred Barnes: Hon. Members on both sides have voiced their concern in this debate as to whether the capital investment restrictions are too severe and there is a general desire that our British railway system should be expanded, developed and adjusted to the modern conditions if it is to become more efficient and serve trade and the public of this country. Constituency points have been raised which affect important railway works. The decline in production and a possible discharge of labour again appear to be related to the larger problems of the supply of raw material and the investment policy followed with regard to British Railways.
We are facing a general problem, and any Minister of Transport may find difficulty in getting all that is required for the transport of this country. In view of my own recent experience, I do not feel disposed to enlarge unduly on that difficulty. I consider however that in a debate of this kind it is advisable to remind ourselves that it has been going on for a very long period.
It is now 13 years since the commencement of the last war. It is a well-known and accepted fact that during that period the railways of this country were subjected to very severe stress and strain and had to carry both equipment and passengers far beyond their normal capacity. While they were doing an essential task equal to the Fighting Services, they were not given the same assistance and facilities regarding equipment, replacements of stock and command over other services.
We are all familiar with the fact that in the post-war period the national financial and economic stringency has fallen with particular severity on the railways. They have not been provided with the opportunity rapidly to overtake the arrears of maintenance and replacements, unlike the war factory which was

shut down for the process of re-tooling in order to turn over to peace-time production. The very nature and condition of our railway service compels them to work at full pressure, without any rest at all.
In a debate of this character, we use the Annual Works Bill in order to have a kind of preliminary canter over the affairs of the British Transport Commission, and I want to emphasise, both to the Minister and to hon. Members in all parts of the House, that this condition is likely to go on year after year. As far as we can see, there is very little possibility of relief in the immediate future, and, in fact, this situation is bound to produce a most serious state of affairs.
For that reason, I support most strongly the case put by my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, West (Mr. Ernest Davies), in his opening remarks; which suggested that we are entitled to have from the Minister, in no party spirit—we have not approached the matter in that way at all tonight—a clear statement of what exactly is the position in 1952 which British Railways have to meet.
When we talk about the total sum allocated to the railways for capital expenditure, I think it is right to point out that very often there is a condition attaching to that total sum, which I think would also cast another light on the point which the hon. Member for Truro (Mr. G. Wilson) was trying to make. Capital expenditure in 1950, he said, was below the authorised figure. It is not always possible, and, indeed, it is not always permitted, to switch any economy in one form of capital expenditure to another form.
For instance, I take it that I am entitled to put this position to the Minister, and I should like to have his confirmation. I do not think there has ever been, and there is not today, any restriction on the amount of steel available for wagon construction. Generally speaking, wagon construction has always been permitted and, whatever the quantity of wagons which the Railway Executive were capable of constructing, there has been no limit in the sense of the steel supplies available. It was that policy which helped us very considerably in the post-


war years to remove restrictions on goods traffic. If, however, they do not consume the whole of their steel on wagon production, they cannot switch it to passenger coach construction, and it has been the restrictions imposed on the use of steel regarding passenger carriages which have handicapped the Railway Executive in trying to provide the travelling public with improved facilities.
Here, we have two problems that are related one with the other. The Railway Executive—and this would apply to any type of railway management; this is not a matter of whether the railways are publicly or privately owned—is faced with the fact that, during the war, the Government of the day did not adjust rail charges and keep them moving in sympathy with the general price level of all commodities in this country, with the result that railway managements were faced after the war with the very unpleasant task of having to lift up their charges to the general level of prices. That has meant a series of increases, the impact of which on the public has been most severe, and has caused, quite naturally, widespread public resentment and resistance.
If whilst that was going on the Railway Executive had been able to improve their services and able to give the public more comfort by way of new coaches and new standardised locomotives, a few of which they have been able to produce, in other words, had they been able to modernise more rapidly their system of travel, there would have been some compensation for the public for the increased charges they have had to pay.
This is a situation which flows not from the defects of management, but as a result of public policy for which I have always considered Parliament carries a large measure of responsibility. Management has had to adjust its prices to post-war conditions and has been denied the facilities and even the average level of opportunity enjoyed by manufacturers in this country. As I have already indicated, this process has gone on for 13 years, and, quite apart from whether part of our transport system ought to be publicly owned or not, we have to face the fact that unless we have an efficient railway system

we cannot deal efficiently with the transport of either passengers or goods.
I now want to come to another aspect of this problem. In this Bill—I want to put this to the Minister—there are quite a number of works affecting the old L.M.S. system, the lines from London to Southend. I should like to know whether any of the works are preparatory for the electrification of the line from Fenchurch Street to Southend. The only electrification of any system that has taken place since the war has been the Liverpool Street to Shenfield line. In my view, that gives Parliament and the country a practical example of the policy that should be followed.
There is no question of theory or doubt about it, and it is related to another aspect of public policy and the investment of capital. If we spend money on roads, it is an investment of capital which is very often less remunerative in its immediate results than an investment of capital in the railways. The electrifying of the Liverpool Street to Shenfield line has resulted in 40 per cent. or more of road transport being transferred to the railways on what was the old London and North-Eastern line.
The cost of effecting a similar improvement on the road from Romford to Aldgate would have represented an immense sum from which we could never have got a similar result. Our vast Metropolitan population can give us heavily loaded trains of the most remunerative kind. The amount that the State would have to expend on the road system of London in order to achieve any amelioration of the choking of our London streets would be far greater than the amount of capital that would have to be expended for the electrification of the suburban lines of London, and the people would travel in well-lighted coaches, in comfort and with greater speed than they could ever travel on the London roads.

Mr. Percy Collick: And in greater safety.

Mr. Barnes: Yes, of course. I have stated often that railway transport is the safest form of transport in the world. This problem of capital investment ought to be looked at not merely from the point of view of the railway system, but in relation to larger social problems—those


of road transport and accidents on the road and matters of that kind. I am exceedingly anxious that the second electrification project in London—from Fenchurch Street to Southend and from Southend by way of Billericay to Liverpool Street—should not be held up. The project was going forward when I left office, though not at a great speed I agree; but the preparatory work was going on, and I should like an assurance from the Minister that that work will proceed.
I should like to ask whether the Minister and the British Transport Commission and the Railway Executive are pursuing as vigorously as they can the closing of branch lines which have already been deserted by the public and the integration of their traffic with the road transport system. The cost of carrying passengers on many of these local branch lines is ridiculously exorbitant, and there is no justification for keeping the lines going.
It is true that whenever the Railway Executive wish to close a branch line, local authorities, Members of Parliament, traders and other people find these lines of great value although for years before no-one bothered about them. It is not fair, right, or good business that the railways of this country should be neglecting their main function of carrying heavy mineral traffic and manufactured products and should be prevented from concentrating their efforts on long distance and bulk travel by dissipating their resources on branch railways.
Bodies like consultative committees designed to give an opportunity to the public to make themselves heard as far as possible have been appointed, but the problem of ensuring efficiency on the railways is recognised to be complex and difficult. When I spoke for the British Transport Commission on matters on this kind from the Government benches opposite, all kinds of suggestions and proposals were put to me from time to time.
The consultative committee machinery can be of considerable value if properly used to protect the travelling public and to give them a voice against any decision by either of the Executives. But I do not consider this machinery is quite competent to deal with many important issues affecting the major industries of

this country. Therefore, I did bring into operation a preliminary system of consultation between representatives of the Federation of British Industries and the Chambers of Commerce to allow the practical men to get together round a table with the British Transport Commission and the railways.

Mr. Walter Monslow: Would the hon. Gentleman agree that they met all too infrequently?

Mr. Barnes: In this instance it is not a question that they meet all too infrequently; this was the beginning of a process of consultation. I thought it was valuable to bring in bodies like the Federation of British Industries and the Chambers of Commerce and make them sit down with representatives of the British Transport Commission and Railway, Road and other Executives, to discuss the various problems, effects, suggestions or proposals, as the case may be.
I believe that was beginning to show some good results, and I should like to ask the Minister whether discussions of that kind have been completed; whether or not they have been useful, and whether they will continue, if the case so justifies it. I do not suggest that this was a permanent piece of machinery, but I do feel that, while we are building up a public machinery of consultative committees, that should not rule out the consideration by practical people of special and specific problems.
I want to give the Minister plenty of time to answer the points that have been submitted to him, but I do press him to make clear to the House the position of capital expenditure and, particularly, the supply of raw materials to the railway industry.

9.37 p.m.

The Minister of Transport (Mr. John Maclay): I do not think anyone could possibly complain about the tone of this debate. Up to now it has been extremely interesting and useful. What it will be from now on is another matter. This is my first experience of piloting a Private Bill through this House and, while I have not the primary responsibility, I am to some extent the godfather, and it has been fascinating to discover how little has been said about the Bill during the course of the discussion. I hope the House will not be annoyed if I say something about the Bill for which I am


responsible. I think it is essential that I should do so.
The right hon. Member for East Ham, South (Mr. Barnes), asked me whether any part of this Bill had anything to do with the electrification of the Southend railway. I can assure him that no fewer than five of the works which appear in that particular part of the Bill are concerned with the working of the Tilbury section of that line and also, ultimately, the electrification of the line. That does not necessarily mean to say that it is going forward absolutely flat out straightaway, because the right hon. Gentleman knows that the difficulties at the moment of getting ahead quickly with that particular scheme are great indeed. But this Bill has a very definite bearing on that very matter, which in the past, I know, was of very particular interest to the right hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Barnes: I should like the hon. Gentleman to say whether or not that scheme of electrification has been stopped.

Mr. Maclay: It has certainly not been stopped; in so far as it was moving at all when the right hon. Gentleman was in office, it has the same amount of volition now as it had when he left the Ministry.
The hon. Member for Billericay (Mr. Braine) put forward a very fair presentation of an interesting and difficult case, and he was followed by the hon. Member for Barking (Mr. Hastings), who put Barking's point of view. This question of level crossings is one which hon. Members on all sides of the House and all people throughout the country realise should be tackled as steadily and as quickly as possible in any given set of circumstances. No one likes level crossings, least of all my Department or myself, but there may be conditions in which level crossings are the only solution for a time.
I suggest that the right place for discussing this matter in detail—whether of a level crossing or a bridge or any type of construction which my hon. Friend would like to put forward—is in the Select Committee, because many arguments can be advanced in both directions, and it would be wrong, if this Bill were given a Second Reading, to pre-judge arguments which can be properly presented only through the procedure of a Select Committee of the House.
My hon. Friend asked me whether I could give an assurance that the matter would be attended to in Committee. I think the words "attended to" were the words which he used. My answer is this: as he probably knows, the Essex County Council already have a petition in relation to the Bill, which alone makes it quite certain that the points he raised can be threshed out fully in the Select Committee. I hope my hon. Friend will feel quite confident that not only will his remarks be noted, but that the substance of his argument will be fully discussed in Select Committee if this Bill is given a Second Reading. In the circumstances, I hope he will feel that it is not necessary to press his Motion.
May I add one point about the particular level crossing to which he referred? He produced some interesting figures about level crossings and accidents through a number of years, and these are the kind of figures which make us all have the views about level crossings which we hold; but it is at least some consolation to know that, going as far back as 1939, there has not been an accident at the level crossing which causes my hon. Friend such concern.
I should not dream of entering into the statistical arguments in which the hon. Member for The Hartlepools (Mr. D. Jones) became involved with one or two of my hon. Friends. Far be it from me to try to guess whether, if four lines cross a level crossing instead of two, even such a skilled railway man as the hon. Member could see to it that all trains were re-timed so that four crossed simultaneously. If that is possible, I should be delighted to hear it, because it sounds like a very ingenious railway operation.

Mr. D. Jones: It is possible to have four trains crossing at the same time. It is possible to hold up mineral trains on the slow line until the fast line is required, and the two can move across together.

Mr. Maclay: That is interesting to one who has a certain delight in being stopped at a level crossing. I like watching trains go past, and if I could see four at once instead of two, I should be delighted, but very often at a level crossing we do not even see two. Generally we see one.
If I have left out any detailed points on the specific application of the Bill, I hope hon. Members will ask me about them, but I turn now to the more general


points and I will try to cover a good many things said by each hon. Member. Nearly everybody has dealt with one or two points, and I ought, therefore, first to try to say something about the allocation of steel, about which almost every hon. Member has asked.
While the debate was going on, and particularly during the speeches of nearly every hon. Member opposite, I was very conscious that I was the wrong person to be sitting here receiving questions on this point. I do not wish to be unkind in any way to my predecessor, but I thought there was a very strong line of criticism running not only against him but also against the previous Government in practically every speech made by hon. Members opposite. I will not elaborate that, as we are keeping as far as we can from party politics, but we must make certain that responsibility rests fairly and squarely for the matters raised in the debate.

Mr. Jones: Can we be sure that the hon. Gentleman will be strong enough to obtain for the railways as much steel from this Government as my right hon. Friend obtained under the last Government?

Mr. Maclay: That is a matter of which we can judge only by results in due course. Let me say this in dead earnestness, the Secretary of State for the Co-ordination of Transport, Fuel and Power and I, from the very first days when we began to hold our present positions, have been working on this question of steel allocations, and I myself believe that the railways have got as good a share of what is available as anybody could have got in the circumstances.

Mr. Barnes: Since the hon. Gentleman has been in his present position six months, cannot he tell us what has actually happened?

Mr. Maclay: What has actually happened? We have got allocations which stand up very well in relation to those for other industries which are in many ways, if not in every way, of equal importance to the country.

Mr. Barnes: Can the hon. Gentleman 'tell us what they are?

Mr. Maclay: Dealing in terms of specific tonnages, it is not possible to give

them because they come in quarters, for the first, second, third and fourth periods; and also it is a little bit difficult to give an actual comparison with last year, certainly at this stage, because, as the right hon. Gentleman knows, there was no specific allocation of steel last year to anybody of the kind that has been made this year. That, I would suggest, is one of the real troubles that the railways got into in the last three months of last year. Here I cannot help referring to the Government of that day. There was no system of allocation that could really ensure deliveries last year. It was only when the present Government came into power that we got down to it, and tried to get a workable system, which may make a very great difference as we go through this year.

Mr. Popplewell: Can the hon. Gentleman tell us whether the tonnage of steel requested by the Railway Executive, in the Minister's estimation, is likely to be received? Or what is the difference?

Mr. Maclay: It would not be possible to go into percentage figures, I am afraid, at such short notice. This is to go into great detail. I am not pretending for one moment that the Railway Executive are remotely satisfied with what they have got. They are not. Nor am I satisfied yet; but I think we have done as well as possible, in the circumstances, for the railways during the period. Beyond that it is very difficult to go.
I know that one hon. Member, at least, who spoke will feel: What is the use of giving sympathy instead of delivering the goods—or the steel? All I can say is that we shall be watching the availability of steel as closely as we can in the months to come, and I can assure the House—for this is not a matter for one side or the other exclusively, for we are all very concerned about this—that we shall do our best to see that the railways get as much steel as possible, always bearing in mind the relative urgency of national needs.

Mr. Smithers: Before my hon. Friend leaves that question of steel, could he say whether particularly hard cases such as that of Eastleigh can receive special consideration within the present allocation? It is, I think, an especially hard case compared with every other.

Mr. Maclay: I had intended a little later on to come to the case that was put so moderately and well by my hon. Friend the Member for Winchester (Mr. Smithers.

Mr. Smithers: I beg my hon. Friend's pardon.

Mr. Maclay: I will deal with it now. It should be quite clear—and this partly answers a question of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Ham, South, also—that the allocation principle that is being used at the moment means that the Railway Executive as a whole, with the British Transport Commission, have got an allocation of steel, and use it as they consider most desirable for the needs of the railways.
The question of Eastleigh, I realise, is a special problem. I understand that my hon. Friend has had discussions with Lord Hurcomb on this point, and I assume that it is being very carefully studied, whether anything can be done there in the special circumstances to try to relieve the very difficult situation that has arisen there. I can assure my hon. Friend that I have noted very carefully what he said, and shall be giving very careful thought to that, as far as it lies in my power to influence what happens there.
On the question of capital investment generally, the right hon. Member for East Ham, South, asked some specific questions. He asked whether the British Transport Commission could switch capital expenditure where they wish between different parts of the undertakings. I cannot answer offhand for what happened in the past, but I do know that at present they are allowed fair discretion in switching. They are not tied strictly to one area or another. It is for them to decide where the raw materials can be best used, and as far as capital expenditure in general is concerned, they are allowed a fair discretion.
The right hon. Gentleman also referred to the closing of branch lines and the value of consultative committees. The closing of branch lines must obviously be pursued where they are completely uneconomic. I really do think, though, that a lot of unnecessary difficulty was run into by the Railway Executive in the last few years because there was not enough pre-consultation with those who

were going to be affected, and I am extremely glad to say that fairly recently it has been decided by the Transport Commission that references will always be made to consultative committees in advance of closing branch lines, instead of leaving consultative committees to struggle with the problem after there has been an announcement in the newspaper and everybody has formed violent views, possibly without the full facts being at their disposal. I sincerely hope that that principle will always be followed.
There is always the human element, and also a certain sentimentality in closing a branch line. I know that if one were going to be closed in my own constituency, I should find great difficulty in not crossing to the other side of the House in order to make a speech at myself. It is very important that there should be pre-consultation. The consultative committees, are, of course, doing valuable work—

Mr. James H. Hoy: Will there also be reconsideration of a decision to close a branch line? Action has been taken recently in Edinburgh; the closing down of the Leith Central Station has been announced; and I wrote to the Minister about it. However, certain changes in road transport charges within the city have meant a very big increase in the number of railway passengers on this line, and I wondered whether the Minister would, together with the Executive, consider what effect that might have on maintaining lines that some months ago they intended to close down.

Mr. Maclay: I am afraid I do not know the precise details of the case to which the hon. Gentleman refers, or how far the thing has gone. I suggest that if it has not gone too far, he ought to go to the consultative committee. It is just the sort of matter the transport users' consultative committees exist to deal with.

Mr. Hoy: With all respect, I would point out that I wrote to the hon. Gentleman. I do not know whether he saw the letter, but I had a courteous reply from his Parliamentary Secretary. In view of the fact that I have already taken up with him this specific case of Leith Central Station, even though the reply came from his Parliamentary Secretary, perhaps in those circumstances he will have another look at it.

Mr. Maclay: I am always prepared to look at any letter from the hon. Gentleman, but again I must refer to the point I was arguing with his hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross), about which we must be clear. Under the 1947 Act the Minister can do nothing in these matters unless something comes to him from the Central Transport Users Consultative Committee, when he can, in restricted circumstances, give a direction—but they are very restricted circumstances. The redress of the public at the moment under the existing Act is through the transport users' consultative committees. I will certainly read any letters, but I shall probably reply saying that if he feels strongly about this he should go to the transport users' consultative committee.

Mr. Hoy: At least that will be a change.

Mr. Maclay: Turning to some of the points raised by the hon. Member for Enfield, East (Mr. Ernest Davies), who opened the debate, I really do think that his first remark was unnecessary, when he referred strongly to the deplorable state of the railways at the outbreak of war. Any hon. or right hon. Member who knows the job the railways did during the war could not for one minute substantiate the case he made that they were in a shocking state. It was just a little bit of—

Mr. Ross: Ask the men who were driving the engines.

Mr. Maclay: In 1939?

Mr. Ross: Yes, in 1939.

Mr. Maclay: All those who used the railways before the war were rude about their own particular local line at times, but the fact remains that the railways did a fabulous job of work throughout the war. I do not think any one would wish to detract from that. Somebody once described the railways as "a poor bag of assets," but that was an equally wrong charge. I am sorry the hon. Member for Enfield, East, made that remark.
He then went on to deal with one or two other points, which I have attempted to answer, and he asked a specific question about the allocation of resources to the Railway Executive. Without going

into details, which would not be reasonable at this time, I can say that in 1951 the allocation was approximately the same as in 1950, and for 1952 it will be slightly higher than that of 1951. That is in terms of money. I do not want to mislead the hon. Gentleman, but it might mean slightly less in terms of work done.
The hon. Member had a word to say about the Enfield line. I expected to hear an argument break between him and the right hon. Member for East Ham, South, because I think that the right hon. Gentleman rather advocated the electrification of the Southend line.

Mr. Barnes: Southend No. 1; Enfield No. 2.

Mr. Maclay: Far be it from me to try to adjudicate between the right hon. Gentleman and the hon. Gentleman as to No. 1 and No. 2 priorities. I would say to the hon. Member for Enfield, East, that everyone of us realises the very great problem that exists for travellers in that part of London, and we deplore the difficulty of the restraint on capital investment which is inevitable in present circumstances.

Mr. Monslow: Would not the hon. Gentleman agree that the railways should take top priority, because in a national emergency they are the arteries of the nation?

Mr. Maclay: With all my enthusiasm for the railways, I do not think that I can argue, nor do I think the hon. Gentleman can, that they are the top priority in present conditions. That point does not quite go. They are obviously an extremely important element in our national structure, whether for peace or war, and the full weight of their importance must be given all consideration in the matter of priority. That is all that any Minister of Transport can properly do, and I have been trying, and will continue to try, to do that.
I had hoped to cover a little more ground, but I do not think that I can without running over my time. I would say, however, in answer to a comment of the hon. Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, West (Mr. Popplewell), whose speech I missed but it was carefully reported to me, that we shall be pushing on with the colour light signalling and


all the latest safety devices. I am informed that steady progress is being made in that matter at York which will have the biggest area of colour light signalling installation anywhere in the world. I am told that the Railway Executive are trying to get on with that if the restrictions on capital investment permit them to do so.
So far as the railways are concerned, I think that the whole House can feel that it is our united desire to see the nationalised railways doing as well as they can, both operationally and financially. I say that quite sincerely without any suggestion of politics of any kind. It is a responsibility of the Minister of Transport to do what he can to help the railways. One can only hope that conditions will make it easier for the proper renewal of stock and all the things that are necessary. When those times come, no one will be happier than I shall be.

Question put, and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time, and committed.

Mr. Speaker: I informed the hon. Member for Billericay (Mr. Braine) that half of his Motion—
That it be an Instruction to the Committee on the Bill to omit from Clause 7 the powers sought therein to make two additional lines of railway to the existing level crossing at Ripple Road, Barking, unless the Commission agree to give an undertaking to promote a further Bill within three years empowering them to build a bridge over the railway in place of the level crossing.
—was out of order, so perhaps in those circumstances, and in view of what has been said, he will say that he does not desire to move it.

Mr. Braine: I intimated during the course of my speech that if I received certain assurances from the Minister, I would not press the matter. I have received a most satisfactory answer, and, therefore, I do not intend to move the Motion.

NEW CARS (SALE AND DISTRIBUTION)

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. Redmayne.]

10.0 p.m.

Miss Elaine Burton: I hope the House will forgive me if I talk very rapidly, because I want to put three months' work into a very short time and as much as possible on to the record so that these matters can be looked into.
In raising tonight the matter of the sale, distribution and supply of new motor cars, I do so in the hope that the evidence which I shall bring forward will convince the Minister of Supply that it is necessary that an inquiry into these matters should be instituted.
First of all, I should like to make the point, which I think is unnecessary, that this is entirely a non-party matter. To suggest that it was a party one would in the first place, be untrue, and secondly, stupid. The abuses of which I am complaining went on for a very long time under the previous Government, and I maintain that they are still going on. If we had had the good fortune to begin this debate earlier, I am sure that many hon. Members on both sides of the House would have expressed their agreement with at least a part of what I am about to say.
It is in art effort to stamp out abuses which are so irritating to so many people and so completely unfair that I rise tonight. The abuses are such as enable one person to obtain five or six new cars in five or six years while other people get none. I suggest to the House that in view of the limitation of supplies to the home market today it is more than ever important that the system should be as fair as we can make it and, furthermore, that where we can prove unfairness in the system, it should be remedied.
In order that hon. Members may realise that I am not trying to avoid the issue, I should like to say that at the end of my remarks I propose to deal with the statement which has been circulated to us all by the various associations concerned. The whole thing is summed up today in a telegram which I got from a wellwisher—I do not know who it is—from Derby. It says:
Good luck in fighting country's biggest racket.


The signature is, "Six years and still waiting."
During the Christmas Recess I took the opportunity of discussing this matter with the British Motor Trade Association, the Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders, the executives of two factories in Coventry, many garage proprietors and at a town forum, to each of which I put forward what I want to say to the House tonight, namely, that a small section of the motor trade is getting the industry a bad name and that certain abuses perpetrated by that section should be investigated.
The matters which should be dealt with are, first, the selling price of secondhand cars; second, the placing of names on several lists by would-be customers; third, the distribution of cars after leaving the manufacturers: and, fourth, the holding of deposits.
What was the reaction of various trade officials? I should like first of all to quote a letter which I received from a small town just outside York. The letter contains the burden of my complaint and the complaints of many of us tonight. It says:
Even in this small town where I live (population under 3,000) we have to suffer the indignity of one local family, comprising three middle-aged brothers and their three middle-20's sons, possessing between them seven postwar cars—not only post-war, but proudly boasting that not a single one is older than 1949. In four cases out of six the individuals concerned have had three different postwar models each in under four years.
I would merely say in passing that I have the names and the full details for every instance which I quote and I hope it will be my pleasure to submit them to the Committee which I hope the Minister will set up.
What was the reaction of the B.M.T.A. and the S.M.M.T. to this? I wish to be fair. I am told that if one wishes to succeed in politics one has to be quite ruthless, but ruthlessness weakens when one encounters pleasant people. However, my soft heart disappeared when the secretary of the B.M.T.A. told the "Coventry Telegram" that my ideas had whiskers on them. In passing, I suggest to the B.M.T.A. that it is a pity that they were allowed to grow whiskers.
The attitude of these associations was, first, that the problem did not

exist; second, that it was too difficult to tackle; and, third, that it was too small to be bothered about. In other words, they were quite inconsistent; but that was the gist of our conversation. The attitude was "anything to avoid trouble or action."
They gave the impression, perfectly naturally, that I really was being rather troublesome, and the best suggestion that they could make was that, if I wanted something to do, I ought to take up the matter of the selling prices of houses. As a matter of fact, that has been the theme song of the associations and the trade Press on this subject.
What is the reaction of the trade Press? I believe that the "Motor Trader" is representative of the motor trader. If it is not, I stand corrected. I have informed the editor of the "Motor Trader" that I shall be quoting from a letter which he has sent to me. The editor wrote to me on 1st February and actually spoke about the
distressing pre-occupation of Parliamentarians with an issue which is already being taken care of as well as can be expected by the trade concerned, an issue which could scarcely benefit from Parliamentary interference ….
I suggest to the editor of the "Motor Trader" that when there is a social abuse we Members of the House of Commons believe that it is our job to ventilate it.
With the same letter came the issue of the "Motor Trader" dated 30th January, in which the leading article says:
As matters now stand, the industry is preparing a large, impressive fire engine with which to attack the blaze if and when it flares up in the House of Commons.
I hope that the fire engine is outside. The article goes on to state that the industry was preparing, and would circulate to selected Members of Parliament, material to provide them with the debating points, should the necessity arise. We have all had that. It goes on further—and this I do not like—to say:
The subscription income of the four 'protective' trade organisations amounts to nearly £250,000 a year. That should be enough to guarantee that never again does a public attack on the trade have to be faced, as at Coventry, by a handful of motor traders unsupported by official assistance.
I would remind the editor of the "Motor Trader" that Members of Parliament are not impressed by threats of financial opposition.
What grounds have I for stating that people get five or six cars in five or six years? I have the letter which I have quoted tonight, and many others similar to it. I have also, as other hon. Members have, the evidence of my eyes. I would ask hon. Members to look at the list of cars for sale in any daily paper, reputable or disreputable, and to look at the years of those cars and the mileage. I want to ask this question: Where do those cars come from? Have their owners given up motoring, or have they traded their cars in as part exchange for new models? People who have been on the waiting list since 1946 have little doubt about the answer. They know it, and they believe that is why they are still on the waiting list.
The problem is that it is very difficult to get details. People say, "If I give you details I shall go to the bottom of the list with my dealer," but many people have written these details to me from all over the country and have not only stated them but signed them. We are thus a step further, and these complaints should be investigated.
The first point is as to the selling prices of second-hand cars. Without exception, everybody who has written to me has complained of this racket. The answer of the trade is that it cannot be stopped. Many people who have been on the waiting list for years never move up. Many move down. I wish I had time to show the up-and-down passages of many of these people. Frequently the chance of people on the waiting list is prejudiced because their dealers take cars which are relatively new in part exchange for new models, and they sell the second-hand cars at the greatly inflated prices prevailing today.
The S.M.M.T. state:
It is an overriding rule that a customer who has already had a post-war car of any make which is still in good running order or who has disposed of such a car shall not, unless there are exceptionally good reasons, be supplied with another new car.
That is all right, and we would like to help the society to see that that is carried out, but the number of new cars and new models advertised for sale in the Press is a proof that fair distribution is a long way off. The question which I wish to address to the B.M.T.A" or to the

Minister of Supply, is whether there is any other business where sellers who have control of deliveries of public orders re-purchase and re-sell the same goods at prices above the prices of the new goods?
I have three suggestions to make. I do not believe in complaining unless I have suggestions to offer. They may be good or bad, but at least they are not an acquiescence in sharp practice. In Australia today the selling price of second-hand cars is controlled. They may not be sold at prices above the list of new cars. That is the first suggestion. A second one is, why not increase the covenant from two to five years? The speculators then would not be anxious to invest their money in cars which would be of doubtful value at the end of five years. The third suggestion is why should there not be a rule that all agents selling second-hand cars above current prices plus Purchase Tax should be placed on the stop list for new cars by manufacturers?
This is not my estimate, but traders who have come to see me from all over the country say that today's list of those wanting new cars would be halved if people's names appeared once on a list and not more; that is a trade estimate. How are we to stop that practice? First I suggest a central registry. Here I am quoting, but I have a good memory and think I am quoting accurately. When I discussed the matter with the B.M.T.A. in the Recess, I was informed by the secretary that a central registry was workable and, furthermore, he thought he could operate it with a staff of 200 people. That is the first question, a central registry would clear it up. Alternatively, I suggest that it should be illegal for one to have one's name on more than one list. Thirdly, that the distributors should send lists of people waiting for car orders to manufacturers.
The next point is on distribution after leaving the manufacturer. Everyone knows that if one is on the list of a distributor or main dealer there is a much better chance of getting a car than on the list of the small dealer. The proposed purchaser has no knowledge when the car leaves the works for the motor dealer's premises. Many people want the distributor to send lists to the manufacturer and the manufacturer to notify the customer


when his car leaves the factory. The sale would still be effected through the dealer, but the customer would know when it was coming to him. All people waiting since 1946 should be supplied first without waiting longer.
If we take the system of distribution from one company in Coventry we find that the car goes through the manufacturer to the distributor; from the distributor to the customer or main dealer; from the main dealer to the customer, or the appointed dealer; from the appointed dealer to the customer or the trade; from the trade to the customer. The distributor allows a percentage discount of 17½ per cent. to the main dealer and therefore if the distributor sells the car to a customer on his list he would not have to pay the 17½ per cent. If the main dealer sells the car to a customer on his list he saves the 15 per cent. which he would have to pay to the appointed dealer. It is all perfectly legal, but it is obvious that the person at the bottom seldom gets a car. I know it is not the responsibility of the manufacturers to see that cars are distributed fairly down the line, but I should like to ask them to see that this has their attention. In West Hartlepool a local firm of bus proprietors have been obtaining Fords and Rileys and selling them immediately they came off covenant—and they never had a new car until 1946.
On the matter of the deposits, I feel more strongly than on anything else. The protective associations—and the word protective is in quotes in their leaflet—state that deposits should be returned where requested. This afternoon I quoted the name of a firm where that is not done. I have had a good deal of correspondence given to me informing me that in Bournemouth there are several firms which refuse to accept cancellation of orders for cars except on forfeiture of the deposit. I hope Bournemouth will get busy after this. I am also informed that the chairman of a large garage in Bournemouth has said that his firm has 3,000 deposits ranging from £10 to £50. Taking an average of £20, it means that that firm has had £60,000 of customers' money.
I have a letter from a man who made a £40 deposit for a Hillman Minx in 1946, saying that if he had put it in the Post Office it would have brought an

interest of £5, and suggesting this must be lucrative to motor dealers. There is the case of a mother who paid a deposit of £40 in 1946 for a car for her son. The car has now become too expensive for the family but the dealer says—and I have his name—that if they cancel the order he will take their deposit. I want to know why such deposits should not be returned. The person penalised is the small person who put down money some time ago. I wish to ask the B.M.T.A. whether they approve that people should forfeit their deposit in any circumstances whatever where a car is not likely to be delivered in the next 12 months.
I suggest that four protective associations are not required for the trade. What is wanted is a protective association for the would-be customer. I am sorry to revert to the "Motor Trader" again, but in its issue of 6th February I saw an interesting statement—many of my friends in the trade say that there has never been such activity in it as there has been since last December—made by Mr. Gresham Cooke, Director of the S.M.M.T. He was speaking at an annual dinner about the statement which has come to all M.P.s; he said he hoped it would put the position in true perspective and might do more than
this energetic woman of Coventry has done ….
He said there was a hint that Parliamentary legislation might be undertaken. This might even lead to matters being taken out of the hands of the trade. This must be kept in mind; he
implored the trade to use its best endeavours to see that new cars went to those who really needed them—those who had not had a new car since the war—and to examine the position of fleet owners very carefully.
In many important papers one could see in the advertisement columns at least a dozen cars for sale having done only a small mileage, Mr. Cooke had continued. The report went on:
The problem must be treated with proper seriousness. If possible he would like to see the order dates of distributor and dealer marching along together.
I have been saying that for a long time.
I come to the statement which was circularised and say definitely that I do not think that the four protective associations have earned their keep here. The last two pages are an apologia for dishonesty


and sharp practice. It is a case of doing nothing at all because apparently it is difficult. We have the matter of the covenant, and it is said that we cannot have a longer one than two years. They speak of the directive that no new car may be supplied to anyone who has had one since the war, that we cannot have price control of cars because there will be a black market. I should like to know what there is today.
I come to the question of a deposit. I look to the S.M.M.T. to consider what they will do on this matter. I wonder if the Minister saw yesterday in "Reynolds News" a statement in which he would be interested. It stated that for the 12 months ended September, 1951, there were 114,136 new cars released in Britain and in the same period 141,771 cars were licensed for the first time. That is a difference of 27,635. We should, like to know in due course why there was that difference.
I wish to pay a tribute to members of the trade who have come to me and given me help and advice, in particular the Chippenham and District Motor Traders Association. I ask the Minister to set up a committee of inquiry into these abuses. I do not know what he will answer, but I should like to say that the suggestion that the trade should put its own house in order is not enough. The trade is only going to do something because it is frightened that we shall do it if they do not. These abuses are not unknown to dealers and the B.M.T.A. and the S.M.M.T. I ask the Minister to set up a committee of inquiry where traders and customers and all the protective associations can give evidence and, where a better system is necessary, we can supply that need.

Mr. Reader Harris: On a point of order. The name of a certain official has been mentioned this evening. As he is not a Member of this House and cannot answer for himself, I think the hon. Lady should point out that he was not speaking for his association, but was in fact merely giving advice and answering questions. He had no time to give the policy of his association and I think she should make that clear.

Miss Burton: I am grateful to the hon. Member. That is true. It was entirely a personal view-point.

10.21 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Supply (Mr. A. R. W. Low): I am glad that the hon. Member for Coventry, South (Miss Burton), was successful in raising this matter in the House tonight. We have all seen that she and others have been ventilating their opinions on this very difficult problem, and I agree with her that it is time the House of Commons had a word or two to say about it.
I am sorry that she should have left me such a little time to reply to her formidable statements. I am also sorry that she felt it necessary to go with such vigour into charges against the motor trade in general, when she began her speech by saying—which I believe to be the truth—that it is only a small part of the motor trade which is guilty, if guilty it is, of certain abuses.
I would point out to the House at the outset that the hon. Lady made it clear that there is no real mystery about what is happening. She gave us examples of certain abuses. She gave examples of what we well know, that secondhand car prices are higher, in some cases much higher, than new car prices. We all know that and there really is no mystery about this matter. I hope the House will bear that in mind when they are considering what I have to say against the demand of the hon. Lady for an inquiry.
I am sure we are all aware that the problem of the distribution of cars is caused mainly by the limitation, at the request of the Government, of the number of new cars which can be sold in the home market. To a certain extent the motor car manufacturers are facing difficulties which they are increasing for themselves by their success in the export market, and by their success in adhering to the home quota set by the Government. I agree with the hon. Lady that that is no excuse for standing still and doing nothing. I do not think that over these years the motor trade has stood still and done nothing.
If the hon. Lady will examine some of the points she made, she will see how, progressively, since 1946, the motor traders have tried to make their distribution system fairer and more effective. She spoke of certain people having had many post-war cars. There was first a


covenant of six months which was extended to one year, and then at the end of 1950 to two years. In addition, the motor manufacturers made it a rule that, except in exceptional cases, no new car should be sold to anyone who has had a post-war car.
Many of the examples the hon. Lady gave to the House were clearly examples of people who had acquired their second or third post-war car before the end of 1950. To that extent she took no account of the great improvement and tightening up of the system of distribution which took place as a result of the consultations of the former Government with the motor trade at the end of 1950. I am going to tell the House, if I have time, of some of the improvements which the motor trade are about to make as a result of consultations with us. But before I come to that, I must say a few words about the very important matters which the hon. Lady raised.
First of all, on the question of deposits, as my right hon. Friend informed the hon. Lady this afternoon, the manufacturers and associations representing the retail side of the industry are recommending that, for the future, the taking of deposits shall be discouraged, except in the case of highly priced cars and cars with special coachwork, and that deposits paid should be returned at the customer's request, unless delivery is expected in the near future. That was made quite clear this afternoon.
As to secondhand cars, my right hon. Friend also made clear to the hon. Lady, in certain light interludes that took place, that it was impracticable and ineffective to try to control the price of secondhand cars in this country. Let us just compare the number of cars under control in South Africa with the number of cars to be controlled here. There are about 50,000 in the South African scheme, compared with about 2,250,000 cars in this country, and, from those figures, the hon. Lady will see how false it is to draw an analogy from them. Regarding Australia, we have very little information, but the point still applies there.
I have to tell the house that we have been in consultation with the trade with the object of closing the loopholes in the system, and as a result I am able to tell the House of some improvements, though I am afraid I shall have to rush through

them. Each customer, whether a private individual, a company, a business or a fleet user will be required to declare his actual transport and need, before a new car is sold to him. This declaration will be made part of the agreement with the B.M.T.A., and, if it is false, it will lead to action, if necessary.
The second improvement relates to the rules operating between the manufacturers and the sellers of the cars. The retailer must see that the declaration is taken in addition to the covenant, and no new car shall be provided to anyone who has had a new post-war car unless exceptional circumstances justify it. I have had talks with them about the exceptional circumstances, and I understand that, in the main, exceptional circumstances would mean either that the customer's post-war car had done such a high mileage that it had become beyond economic repair or had become a total loss in an accident. In any case the customer would have to have an exceptional need for a new car.
Stricter conditions will he applied to the supply of cars to fleet users, firms and businesses, and new cars will only go to such people to replace pre-war vehicles or to replace post-war vehicles which are beyond reasonable economic repair or to add to the fleet if essential need is proved. It is obviously important to see that one person cannot have one new car for himself and one for his business. I have asked the industry to ensure that this loophole is blocked.
There will also be a change in the conditions governing delivery. Delivery will be made in rotation according to the date of order, but certain exceptional cases will be taken out of order. These are firstly, doctors, midwives and veterinary surgeons, who will be given their present degree of preference. Secondly, those who have special business or professional use for a car—but there will be a very strict assessment of these needs—and thirdly, compassionate cases where, on grounds of reliability of transport, a preference ought to be given. Consideration is being given to the advisability of asking the retailer to publish his list or show it to any person included on the list, but that is a matter I must leave to the trade.
I now have a word to say about the system of allocation by the manufacturer


to the retailer. It is not clear how far the present system of allocation met the difficulties of the dealers and traders who have orders for cars produced by manufacturers with whom they have no contract. An investigation is therefore being made into orders placed in 1946. Their system of allocation will take into account those orders and seek even distribution to all traders, whether they have contracts or not.
I hope, for these reasons, that the hon. Lady will accept our decision not to have the inquiry she proposed at this stage. I hope she will see from what I have said

how this difficult problem is being tackled, and also that, if there is to be a benefit from the alteration of rules, because of the very small number of cars reaching the home market—60,000 this year—few people will benefit from it. Both the Ministry and the industry are anxious to see that distribution is as fair as it possibly can be.

The Question having been proposed at Ten o'Clock, and the debate having continued for half an hour, Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at Half-past Ten o'Clock.